Rother District Council Agenda Item: 7.1
Report to - Improvement & Resources Overview & Scrutiny Committee
Date - 8 March 2010
Report of the - Director of Resources
Subject - Value for Money – Progress Report
Recommendation: that the future actions identified by the Value for Money Steering Group be endorsed.
Lead Cabinet Member: Councillor Patten
Head of Service: Robin Vennard
Introduction
1. This report updates Members on the progress of the Value for Money Steering Group. Two initial reviews have been undertaken, parks and open spaces (Appendix A) and car parks (Appendix B).
Basis of the reviews
2. The Steering Group has agreed a standard format for the reviews. This concentrates on the following:
(i) Brief description of the service area to be reviewed
(ii) Detail of the current level of service with regard to any performance indicators relevant to the service including customer satisfaction where available
(iii) Description of the costs of the service
(iv) Comparison of cost to the other authorities in Rother’s Audit Commission nearest neighbour group
(v) Comparison of cost and performance
(vi) Areas for discussion by the Steering Group
(vii) Conclusions and recommendations
Parks and Open Spaces
3. The review shown at Appendix A has identified that the Councils Parks and Open Spaces are delivering average customer satisfaction at a higher than average cost when compared to like Authorities. The recent grounds maintenance contract review did secure ongoing savings of £40,000 but the review suggests that further work is needed to establish whether spend is excessive or income generation low. Initial work has highlighted the difficulty in obtaining information of the type of parks and open spaces offered by the other Councils.
4. The Steering Group agreed the following actions:
(i) Further work should be focused on those councils delivering similar satisfaction at a lower cost.
(ii) Identify those Councils where parks and open spaces have been devolved to Town and Parish Councils.
(iii) Review the level of spend allocated to Special Expenses for Bexhill and Rye.
Car Parks
5. The review shown at Appendix B demonstrates that the Council’s net income generated for each parking space is almost half the average of our nearest neighbour group. Customer satisfaction data is not currently available for this service. The review focused on exploring South Hams District Council in greater detail as there is a high level of comparability with Rother (a rural authority, similar populations and a small number of key towns) but they generate significantly more income. South Hams do however enforce on street parking restrictions on behalf of the County Council which will have a positive impact on car parking usage and compliance.
6. A review of charge rates in each Council’s car parks show no significant variation. It may be that the volume of visitors is lower than in South Hams but the research indicates that our enforcement is lower meaning that users of the car parks could be avoiding paying. South Hams issued 2743 fines against 386 for Rother in 2008/09 which generated £24,000 in income. There does appear to be scope to invest resources into enforcement to ensure greater compliance with parking regulations and generate additional revenues for the Council.
7. The Steering Group agreed the following actions:
(i) review of current free spaces in Rother
(ii) review current levels of enforcement
(iii) review current boat parking policies
(iv) review use of Wainwright Road car park
(v) look at expansion of parking provision
Appendix A
Value for Money Review: Parks and Open Spaces
Service Area:
The Rother Parks and Open Spaces team manage formal landscaped parks, trees, recreational open space, cemeteries, playgrounds in parks, woodland, sports grounds and small landscape schemes such as seafront flower beds.
Grounds maintenance is provided by John O’Conner Ltd under the terms of a management contract. The arboriculture, cemeteries, landscape design and service development are specialised roles in the Parks team. The external partnerships that support the current focus on play activities and facilities are also managed by the Parks team.
Level of Service:
The latest Performance Indicators (2008) show that 75% of residents were satisfied with parks/open spaces and 77% of residents had used parks/open spaces in the past 6 months.
A subsequent survey focussing on parks was undertaken with the Residents Panel in 2009. This work established that 50% of residents visit a park or open space at least once a week and overall satisfaction was 82%. Satisfaction with litter was 62%, maintenance 76% and planting/flower beds 82%, with desired improvements being less dog fouling and more facilities (café, play equipment, seats etc).
Cost of Service:
2008/09 2009/10
Budget Budget
£ £
Operational Expenditure 1,236,780 1,222,340
Income (47,530) (49,560)
Net Operational Expenditure 1,189,250 1,172,780
Support Services 69,320 91,440
Net Expenditure 1,258,570 1,264,220
This chart compares Rother’s spend per head on parks and open spaces with that of other councils in the comparator group. Data is taken from 2008/09 budget information.
This chart shows the relationship between spend per head on parks and open spaces and levels of satisfaction. It shows that Rother is in the middle of the range for user satisfaction but at a higher than average cost.
This graph shows the percentage of residents that have used parks/open spaces in the last 6 months (taken in 2008). This shows that Rother is achieving a similar level of satisfaction as other councils in the comparator group.
Comparison/Benchmarking:
Comparisons have been made against a group of similar local authorities, our “Nearest Neighbours” as set out by the Audit Commission.
£’s per headRother £14.36 (2007/08 £14.03)
Highest in group £24.21 (2007/08 £22.18)
Lowest in group (£ 0.36) (2007/08 (£ 0.38)
Average of group £’s per head £7.80 (2007/08 £ 7.02)
Position in group (higher position
Is higher cost per head) 15 out of 16 (2007/08 12 out of 13)
The work completed by the Grounds Maintenance working group in 2008 included direct comparison of the facilities provided and standards being achieved by neighbouring authorities. The conclusion of the working group was that the levels of service currently being provided are appropriate for 2012 onwards.
Discussion:
Councils should be able to demonstrate a link between the resources that they invest and the extent to which residents are satisfied with those services.
Surveys of residents carried out in all councils in 2007/08 demonstrated that the single biggest factor explaining variation in satisfaction with culture (including parks and open spaces) was the extent to which those services were used by the local population.
High levels of spending on services should be associated with evidence of comparably high levels of take up and satisfaction with those services.
Conclusion/Recommendations:
The Steering Group agreed the following actions:
(i) Further work should be focused on those councils delivering similar satisfaction at a lower cost.
(ii) Identify those Councils where parks and open spaces have been devolved to Town and Parish Councils.
(iii) Review the level of spend allocated to Special Expenses for Bexhill and Rye
Appendix B
Value for Money Review Car Parks
Service Area:
The Council operates car parking facilities under the Road Traffic Act 1984. This enables a Local Authority to provide off-street parking for the purpose of reducing on-street congestion only.
When the Council previously reviewed its car parking arrangements it was challenged over the intention to offer various concessionary uses and concluded that concessions should not be granted. The Council’s Legal Officer made the observation that the primary function of a car park is to reduce congestion only and not to
• “make money”
• give concessions that favour sectors of the community e.g. shop workers, mums dropping children off at school, etc.
• give concessions to favour residents
For many years local authorities in East Sussex have charged for the use of car parks. In Rother car parks like Camber Sands, with a high number of visitors, generate significant levels of income, but Rother also operates a number of car parks where no charges are made.
The policy approach to car park pricing was approved by Cabinet in 2009 as follows:
The Council recognises that car travel is often an essential part of rural life and supports the provision of off street car parks to minimise on-street traffic congestion.
Level of Service:
The Council operates 30 car parks containing 1,784 spaces and 2,130 seasonal spaces. Of these 3,914 spaces 728 are free.
There are also 10 car parks in the Parks Section which are free to the user of facilities and there are also 3 car parks at leisure facilities and swimming pools which are currently free to users of the facilities.
There are no published Performance Indicators for Parking Services.
Cost of Service:
2008/09 2009/10
Budget Budget
£ £
Operational Expenditure 306,330 339,320
Income (878,480) (915,440)
Net Operational Income (572,150) (576,120)
Support Services 50,690 51,170
Net Income (521,460) (524,950)
Comparisons have been made against a group of similar local authorities, our “Nearest Neighbours” as set out by the Audit Commission.
In order to further understand the figures comparison with South Hams District Council has been made. This Council is one of our “near neighbours” and is an “excellent” authority under CPA assessment.
This chart compares the Council’s net income from parking services with that of other councils in the comparator group. Data is taken from 2008/09 budget information. Initially the information about spending is expressed relative to a council’s population, which makes comparison between councils with different scales of operation easier.
The chart shows how the income being generated by Rother is significantly lower, per head of population, than that of other similar authorities.
In order to provide a clearer picture of a council’s performance it is useful to express income or expenditure per unit. A unit cost is calculated by expressing spending relative to the number of units of service directly associated with that spending. This chart uses the number of parking spaces as an appropriate measure.
This reinforces the issue that Rother does not appear to be generating the levels of income being seen by our comparable neighbours.
Comparison/Benchmarking:
Based on net income per head:Rother £ 5.95 (2007/08 £ 5.01)
(2009/10 £ 5.99)
South Hams £21.79 (2007/08 £ 18.74)
(2009/10 £ 23.04)
Average of group £11.60 (2007/08 £ 10.90)
Position in group (higher position Rother - 8 out of 13 (2007/08 8 out of 12) is higher cost per head) South Hams 2 out of 13 (2007/08 3 out of 12).
Based on net income per space:
Rother (3,914 total spaces) £133.23 (2007/08 £112.16)
(2009/10 £ 134.13)
South Hams (4,013 total spaces) £451.88 (2007/08 £388.49)
(2009/10 £477.70)
Average of group £260.00 (2007/08 £243.50)
Position in group (higher position Rother - 8 out of 11 (2007/08 10 out of 11) Is higher cost per head) South Hams 1 out of 11 (2007/08 1 out of 11).
A review of income generated by the two councils revealed differences in the type of income/expenditure and the fee charging regime.
Boat Parking - South Hams figures include income and expenditure relating to boat parking which are not included in Rother’s figures. Rother earns a minimal amount (£5,800) each year from this activity.
On-Street Parking Enforcement – South Hams act as agents for Devon County Council with regard to on-street parking enforcement. 3,868 penalty charge notices were paid during 2008/09. Rother has no role with regard to on-street parking matters.
Off-Street Parking Enforcement -
Penalty Charge Notices – Both councils issue PCNs for off street parking;
Rother charges £80, discounted to £60 if paid within 14 days
South Hams charges £70 for higher level offences and £50 for lower level offences, discounted to £35 and £25 if paid within 14 days
Number paid in 2008/09:
Rother 386 (£23,928 received)
South Hams 2,743
PCN per car parking space:
Rother (3,914 spaces) 0.10
South Hams (4,013 spaces) 0.68
No of Enforcement Officers (multi tasking):
Rother 3
South Hams 7
Event Income – South Hams car parks are available for hire as event locations. In line with legal advice Rother seldom permits car parks to be utilised for non-parking purposes.
Comparison of Charges
Car Parking Charges / Rother / South HamsUp to ½ hour / - / 30p to 50p where available
Up to 1 hour / 50p to £1.30 (Camber high season £1.50) / 60p to £1.20
Up to 2 hours / £1.10 to £2.60 (Camber high season £3.00) / £1.40 to £2.40 (coaches £3.20)
Up to 3 hours / - / £1.80 to £3.60
Up to 4 hours / £3.20 to £4.70 (Camber high season £5.50) / £2.80 to £4.80 (coaches £6.40)
Up to 6 hours / Only Camber, £4.00 and £7.50 in high season / £3.50 (only 1 location)
6 to 8 hours / Only Camber, £4.00 and £9.50 / -
All day / £3.70 to £5.80 (Camber high season £10.00) / £4.40 to £7.00 where available (coaches £10.50)
Discussion:
In most councils, spending on parking is more than offset by income. In general terms, councils that attract visitor turnover during the day tend to yield more income than councils with lower day time populations.
However, levels of pricing for parking may reflect wider strategies in the local transport plan, for example for tackling congestion or supporting the local economy.
Conclusion/Recommendations:
The Steering Group agreed the following actions:
(vi) review of current free spaces in Rother
(vii) review current levels of enforcement
(viii) review current boat parking policies
(ix) review use of Wainwright Road car park
(x) look at expansion of parking provision
IR100308 – Value for Money Progress Report 1