Minutes:
The following questions on notice were received from Councillor Eldridge and responses provided by the Portfolio Holder for Corporate and Environmental Services.
Councillor Eldridge was entitled to ask one Supplementary Question to each Question on Notice, without notice (this should be a question and not a statement). Where a Supplementary Question was asked, the question and the response is detailed under the relevant question.
Question 1: As you are aware, approximately 2,500 properties recently received notification from SHDC that their garden waste collection days would be changing. Unfortunately, this caused considerable confusion, as the changes coincided with a Bank Holiday week and were further compounded by issues with the website not displaying the amended collection days. Following implementation, I was contacted by numerous residents within my ward who reported that their garden waste collections had been missed entirely. After raising this with the team, it was identified that around 90 properties were affected due to a technical issue, the majority of which were within my ward. In addition to this, there were further disruptions where some subsequent collections were delayed by a day in certain areas due to reported high volumes of garden wastewhich led to service delays, this was then followed by a further amendment to collection days of which residents were notified via email. Response: There was some delay in collecting garden waste from some customers. However, this was caused by a technical issue with the software used to plan the routes, as soon as the software problem had been resolved, the collections were made within the capacity.
Supplementary Question: Councillor Eldridge queried whether further re-routing of garden waste collections would be required to accommodate additional subscribers and, if so, whether this would result in further changes to collection days. She also sought assurance that any future re-routing would not result in properties being omitted and that clear communication would be provided to residents. Response: Councillor Astill advised that the current service model was based on an anticipated uptake of 40% of households, with the budget forecast set at 34%. Current subscription levels were reported to be approximately 29%. He explained that the projected growth should not necessitate further re-routing in the immediate future; however, if the service experienced a significant increase in demand, further re-routing would be inevitable at some point. Councillor Astill expressed confidence that issues experienced during the recent re-routing would not be repeated. He reiterated that an independent review had been commissioned and confirmed that this would include consideration of the processes followed, including communication arrangements.
Question 2: Due to this recent poor service and in light of the council’s upcoming transition to wheelie bins for all collections, I would appreciate clarification on the following:
1/ What measures have now been implemented to prevent similar issues occurring in the future? Response: It is important to say that the garden waste collection service is a good service. Some statistics: 292766 collections made annually; 99.78% collections completed on their scheduled day (last financial year); 8 complaints received (last financial year). The recent service issues occurred due to an issue with the software used by the waste team to manage the collection rounds, which resulted in incorrect information (on the new rounds) being uploaded into our “in cab system” and also impacted the information on the Councils website. The new rounds are being built from the ground up using a specialist supplier, the software being used to plan the routes for “bags to bins” is different from what was used to plan the garden waste changes.
2/ Why were there issues relating to high volumes when overall capacity should be known based on the number and size of bins? In principle, capacity planning should account for the possibility of all bins being presented full. Response: The issue wasn’t due to lack of capacity, but a technical issue in the software used. The collection rounds have recently been redesigned to enable all residents across the district to apply for a garden waste collection, and these new, optimised rounds are now working as expected. We have received 543 new garden waste subscribers in those areas previously unable to access this service.
3/ Can a system be introduced to ensure that ward members are notified promptly—via email and, if possible, text message—when any waste collections (garden waste, general waste, or recycling - and moving forward food waste) are missed? This should include affected roads, a brief explanation, and the revised collection date.Response: As a result of this and the capacity challenges within the general waste and recycling collections (caused by the volume of waste being presented), a process has been introduced where missed collections are:
· Reported to the supervisors (leading to)
· Ward members are made aware (leading to)
· The communications team updating social media channels and customer services having the information available for residents.
4/ As email contact details are held for all residents subscribed to the garden waste service, could these residents also be contacted directly to inform them of any disruptions?Response: We are looking into new software that will provide customers with a “newsfeed”, which in turn sends out notifications about live issues (including: delayed routes, renewal information for garden waste, blocked access etc) when introduced this will ensure residents can be kept up to date about their service automatically. It will also reduce demand into Customer Services, meaning an improved response for our customers who want to speak to a real person. Improving communication in this way would enable us to provide timely updates to residents, reduce confusion, and help confidence in the service.
5/ Additionally, a recent email regarding garden waste collections was sent in error with more than 500 recipients cc’d in when they should have been bcc'd which could not be recalled. Can you please advise members:
5.1 How this occurred?Response: Emails were sent directly from the system and the bcc (blank carbon copy) box was not ticked in error, however, the full circumstances are being investigated in accordance with policy.
5.2 Where the investigation into this matter currently stands and the outcome if we have one yet?Response: This matter has been reported to the ICO following the Councils policy and we await the outcome.
5.3 What measures have now been put in place to ensure that such a data protection breach does not occur again? Response: We will adopt any recommendations made by the investigation to reduce the risk of this error occurring in the future.