Tree and Woodland Management

Service Review

Eddie Curry, Head of Parks and Open Spaces

Eirion Lewis, Tree Services Manager

The Importance of Trees in the Urban Landscape

Landscape character

•Historic Importance

•Define the character of the Area

•Creates a sense of place

•Making an area attractive to new businesses, even increasing the value of property

•Marking the seasons, giving scale, colour and form.

•Biodiversity

•Create habitat

•Supports an extensive range of flora and fauna species

Climate Change

•Reduces the urban heat island / temperature in the City.

•Provides shade and cool environments

•Reduces CO2 and other omissions and traps and removes dusts particles from

the air

•Reduces soil erosion and flash flooding

•Provides local food growing opportunities

Nottingham City Council is the owner and custodian of one of the largest tree stocks in the East

Midlands, estimated in excess of 100,000 specimen trees and 155 hectares of woods, spread across

the city in the parks, open spaces, highways, housing gardens, schools and cemeteries and

crematoria.

•The scope of the Tree Service Scrutiny is review is to establish:-

1. if the funding available for tree management and maintenance is being used in the most efficient and effective way possible?

2. how is the Council managing the problems caused by tree roots, in particular damage to pavements/ roads?

• In responding to these questions this review will also provide detailed response to the following additional lines of enquiry:

1. How has the service been restructured and what services does it provide and how is it delivered?

2. How is this service benchmarked compared to other local authorities?

3. What tree management plan does the Council operate and how has this been developed.

4. What reporting routes and inspections regimes do you have for trees causing damage to pavements/highways and how is this addressed and monitored?

5. Are there any particular trees or areas in the City with damage being caused by trees and how do you deal with these?

6. How are you ensuring that tree planting alongside new developments for example NET Phase 2 is appropriate for the location?

7. Updated Ash dieback report / action plan.

Tree Service Budgets

Operational Budget (£’s)

Service 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14

Highways 162,000 161,900 128,000 100,150 102,150

Housing 340,000 280,000 250,000 300,000 316,000

Parks 90,000 90,000 90,000 70,000 70,000

Internal Recharge 64,000 120,600 65,000 65,000 65,000

External recharge 15,000 33,500 700 3,550 3,550

Client costs 135,360 155,350 139,230 142,080 148,620

ANNUAL TOTALS 806,360 841,350 672,930 680,780 705,320

Background

• For many years the City’s Tree Service had operated in an ad hoc and reactive

manner.

• Whilst the quality of work was not in question the Service operated without any policy

guidelines, no strategic planning and had limited capacity to forward programme and

proactively manage the City’s Tree’s.

• To help improve the strategic planning of the service the Tree Services transferred to

the Parks and Open Space Service in January 2010.

• On transfer of the service it was clear that management practices, operational

guidance and strategic planning / policy guidance all needed to be fully reviewed and

restructured.

• It became very apparent that demand for Tree Services exceeded the available

operational budgets and as a result the service often receives a consistently high level

of service request & complaints from both our citizens often through Councillor

Casework.

Progress made to date

• A full service review was carried out during 2011 and was formally adopted

(DD005 Tree Service Review) on the 20th January 2012.

• In parallel with the service review a lengthy consultation process was also carried during 2012 with all the Area committees, the Parks and Opens Forum and other community groups etc.

• The results of both the consultation and the service review helped to shape and inform and production of the City’s 1st fully comprehensive Urban Forestry Strategy (UFS).

• The UFS was formally adopted (DD0600 Urban Forestry Strategy) on 5th February 2013.

• The Tree Service was exposed to the external market through a process of competitive tendering March –July 2013.

• The Service was restructured in July 2013. Recruitment to all the new operational and technical posts including a new Tree Service Manager and one of the technical posts was completed in July 2013.

• A new Partnership/ Contract with Gristwood and Toms Ltd started in 1st October 2013. The Contract is for a five year period with an option to extend for a further two years.

• Final recruitment of the last three technical posts was carried out in November 2013. All Three are now in post.

Tree Service Review

• In order to improve the service a full service review was carried out during

2011 and was formally adopted (DD005 Tree Service Review) on the 20th

January 2012:-

The objectives of the review were as follows:-

• Ensure that Council’s legal obligations for trees are fully met. (Tree Safety

Management Plan).

• To get more for less. (Higher quality service for the same or less money).

• Manage expectation through improved communications with citizens.

• Align the service to the Council’s priorities and aspirations.

• Manage in excess of 100,000 individual trees and 155 hectares of woodlands in a

sustainable manner consistent with the Council’s Environmental Policy, Breathing

Space Strategy and best practice.

Key findings of the Review

The Tree Service Review highlighted 7 key recommendations

• Based upon a One Council approach, prepare the service for the process of Tendering.

• Once specified the parts of the service agreed to be tendered should have the opportunity to submit revised costs within a revised structure.

• Evaluate the tender packages. If, at this stage, it is deemed not to be in the best interests of the Council to outsource the service or parts, then implement substantial restructure.

• Immediately improve the pace of the Tree Safety Management Plan surveying so that the first phase is completed. This will inform the tender selection and assist in selecting the most appropriate and cost effective option. Estimated additional investment required £60,000.

• Immediately develop and adopt the Urban Forestry Strategy

• Review the manner in which all departments fund tree work to ensure greatest efficiencies can be met.

• To affirm success and to ensure that priorities are being met continuous monitoring the performance of the operational and technical functions against prescribed performance indicators

As a result the following three options where considered: • Retain all the work in house.

• Expose the entire service to the private sector..

• Introduce a Mixed Economy Service and expose part of the operational service to the private sector.

How is this service benchmarked compared to other local authorities?

• As part of the service review discussions were held with members of the core cities group and neighbouring authorities. This led to visits and more detailed discussion at Leicester City Council and Liverpool City Council.

• Also the officers critically reviewed their own experiences of letting and managing arboricultural contracts, and added these to discussions with colleagues at other local authorities, notably at London Boroughs.

• It was recognised from the review that it would be unlikely for us find any like for like comparative authorities as the number of trees, available budgets and working arrangement differs in practically all authorities.

Leicester City Council

Leicester provides a fairly traditional in-house service. Fulfil custodial role for the whole Council, managing trees for all Departments. Planning and private tree management is carried out separately within Planning Service functions.

Scope and scale of operation

Total turnover 2010/11 £1.074m (includes officer costs)

Liverpool City Council

Liverpool has two contracts in place one with Glendale Liverpool Ltd. and the other with Service Team now Enterprise Liverpool. The contracts are multi-functional contract. The decision to out-source was driven by need to save money.

• Future Bench Marking is now being progressed with the Core Cities

Market Analysis

The review discussions did identify is a number of differing contractual and partnering arrangements that are in place and how these could provide good practice examples for Nottingham to consider.

A range of operational tasks where compared to the Councils in house cost

TOTAL (£571,942)

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

125%

150%

175%

200%

SP 5 SP 2 SP 1 N'ham. C.C SP 4 SP 3 SP 6

Combining the results placed the Council’s current position in the middle of the

estimates, suggesting that three of the SPs could realise improved value for money

in the region of 30 to 45%.

How has the Service been Restructured

Work is carried out for

• Highways, Housing, Parks, Children's Services and Other departmental and external contracts

Pre 2013 Old Structure

Tree Service Manager x1

Commissioning (Technical)

unit

1 Tree Officer 2Tree Inspector

x1Business Support

Delivery (Operational) unit

1,Operations Supervisor x10

Arborists

New Structure

Tree Service Manager x1

Commissioning (Technical) unit

4 Tree Officer x1Business Support

Delivery (Operational) unit

NCC Retained Team 1 Head Arborists x

3Arborists

External Partner - Gristwood and Toms

Ltd 2 / 3 operational Teams

1 Tree Inspector

The New structure of the service

Scope of Works NCC retained

operational Team

NCC retained Technical

Team

Gristwood and Toms

Ltd

Highway and Housing routine

Tree Works

x

Highway and Housing

Epicormic works

x

Leisure , School, estates Tree

Works

x x

Sensitive Case work / Citizen

enquiries

x x

Emergency Call Out x x x

Tree Surveying x x

Commercialised contract

works

x x

Tree Contract management x

Progressive Tree strategic

Planning and development

x x

What tree management plan does the Council operate and how has this

been developed?

During 2012 consultation with all the Area committees, the Parks and Opens Forum and other community groups etc was carried out in order to inform and comment on the production of a new Urban Forestry Strategy.

Urban Forestry StrategyThe UFS Vision is to:-

“CREATE AN URBAN FOREST THAT IS DESIGNED AND MANAGED SUSTAINABLY, FOR THE BENEFITS OF NOTTINGHAM’S COMMUNITIES.”

To achieve the vision two aims have evolved, to create Nottingham’s urban forest, each with its own guiding principles:

Aim 1: To design a sustainable urban forest

Aim 2: To manage a sustainable urban forest.

To support the delivery of the Vision and aims 12 key principles have also been formulated to both provide guidance and help decision making.

The measure of whether this has been achieved will be if the canopy cover can recover to 2007 level of 14.1%.

The strategy is completed with 6 annexes, more detailed guidance for the way in which the Council will deal with some of its key challenges:

Annex 1 – Tree Safety Management Plan:

The system the Council will employ to meet its duty of care regarding its trees and woods.

Annex 2 – Responsible Neighbour’s Guide:

Whilst it is recognised trees provide many benefits, it is also acknowledged that they can cause inconvenience to neighbours. This sets out how the Council will respond in a clear and consistent manner to many of the more frequently raised concerns.

Annex 3 – Nottingham’s Response to Tree Root Claims:

The approach the Council will adopt to manage its trees to lessen the risk of subsidence related damage to properties, and how it will respond in the event of such occurrences being reported to it.

Annex 4 – Right Tree, Right Place:

Guidance to enable the selection of more appropriate species when replanting. Trees will be more likely to benefit Nottingham’s communities and reduce the on-going maintenance and management costs.

Annex 5 – SPG, Trees and Development Sites:

Guidance to provide additional advice to developers on how the Council’s policies will be applied, and what will be required of developers seeking planning permission for developments that may affect trees

Annex 6 – City and Ward Action Plans:

The priorities for the city and each ward to manage the urban forest in a sustainable manner.

PROVISION OF TREE SAFETY RISK MANAGEMENT

Tree safety management obligations require compliance with various legal Acts and tort. These

duties fall within the realms of

• Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 (duty of care owed to employees and others)

• Management of Health and Safety at Work Regs. 2000 (responsibilities of carrying out

adequate risk assessment and maintaining and recording actions);

• Occupiers Liability Acts 1957 and 1984 (management of risks posed to users and visitor)

• Highways Act 1981 (duty of care to highway users, this includes responsibility for trees

adjoining the highway on private land).

The delivery of these responsibilities is reinforced by successful prosecutions and HSE Enforcement

Notices served on numerous large landowners, including local authorities. This has led to the

issuance of formal advice from the Government, HSE and professional bodies, including how they

expect responsible tree owners to exercise their duty of care. In 2007 the HSE produced SIM

01/2007/05 “Management of the risk from falling trees”.

The Council needs to be able to demonstrate it is meeting these duties so that it can:

• Prevent injury or death through tree failure

• Prevent damage to property from tree failure

• Prevent injury from slips and trips on footways, caused by roots

• Repudiate insurance claims

• Protect the Council’s image and reputation

In response to these legal responsibilities, and being guided by the HSE’s SIM Notice,

a risk management system “Tree Safety Management Plan” has been drafted in

consultation with Insurance, and Health and Safety Services. Insurance Services have

ratified the legal context via their legal advisors.

The Tree Safety Management Plan provides a sensible way forward which minimises

the costs to the Council, whilst meeting its obligations. The duties regarding trees cut

across boundaries, and are not respecters of departmental working and therefore the

approach adopted has been to view the solution from a “one-Nottingham” perspective;

including Nottingham City Homes.

It is the intention of the approach not to be onerous,

sharing duties between the professional tree

inspectors and site manager. Delivery is by zonal

risk management in accordance with HSE

recommendations, rating the risk potentially posed

by a tree in accordance with the level of use and

value of its location. From this approach a score is

applied to a hazard and associated risk, assisting in

its quantification, and enabling remediation to be

prioritised to ensure resources are targeted to

greatest need and benefit.

Responsible Neighbour’s Guide:

Each year the Council receives approximately 2,000 enquiries regarding its trees,

the Responsible Neighbours’ Guide has been written to clarify the responses

the Council will make to a range of enquires commonly made by citizens.

How the Council responds to the most common concerns Safety

• Obstruction of the Highway

• Obstruction of public lighting and signs

• Root damage and subsidence.

• Drain blockage

• Reducing the height of trees

• Television, satellite and other radio equipment.

• Petals, leaves, seeds and fruit.

• Daylight loss and affecting views

• Birds and other wildlife

• Honeydew

• The Guide helps to provide a consistent response to citizens and will inform Councillors of the usual response that can be expected to typical tree related enquiries.

• This may help reduce the number enquiries posted on the casework system.

• The key principle is that in many cases tree safety and works can be prioritised and carried out in line with the TSMP.

What reporting routes and inspections regimes do you have for

trees causing damage to pavements/highways and how is this

addressed and monitored? Tree Root Claims

• All tree related enquiries are logged on the EzyTreev” database.

This includes the collection of enquiries relating to Tree Root

Claims. Where these affect property the procedure detailed in

annex 3 UFS.

• All other enquiries relating to highway safety are managed on an

individual basis. Often these problems once identified are

discussed with ward Councillors, colleagues in Highway team and

Tree services.

Ward based priorities action plans

• It is envisaged that further work to identify these types of problems will be identified as part of the production of the Ward based priorities action plans annex 6 UFS.

• A good example of how these issues can be dealt with in this way is the Lenton Grid Tree Project.

• The project identified a large number of ward based complaints and helped to ring fence area capital funding to strategic plan and transform the tree scape within the entire Lenton Grid area.

• The project included removing and major pruning of 80 trees, and a comprehensive highway repair and a tree replacement programme.

Are there any particular trees or areas in the City with damage

being caused by trees and how do you deal with these?

How are you ensuring that tree planting alongside new

developments for example NET Phase 2 is appropriate for the

location?

Officers from both the Tree team and Parks development Team and planning

teams all contribute to the strategic planning of new and replacement of

Trees. The guiding principle are that 2 trees replace every 1 removed

positioned in accordance with: -

UFS Annex 4 – Right Tree, Right Place:

UFS Annex 5 – SPG, Trees and Development Sites:

Updated Ash dieback report / action plan

Since the 25 October 2013 Scrutiny review there continues spread of the disease has continued around the country most recent confirmed case in Derbyshire. There are still no confirmed sightings in Nottingham. The Service remains on standby and visual inspections / monitoring continues.

Desired outcome – to ensure that colleagues and citizens are aware of the symptoms and action needed to address Ash Dieback in the City.

Web site information is currently being prepared along with an article to go in the Arrow in April and Local press. Updates will also be posted on the councils Face book and twitter sites

Desired outcome – to ensure that the City maintains its tree stock through a programme of removal and replacement, as well as new sustainable planting in new housing developments etc and infrastructure including the NET Phase.

City wide Tree inspection has been completed and ongoing surveying continues inline with the UFS.

Thank You

Any Questions