Agenda item

(1)       At Highways Advisory Board (HAB) on 1 May 2007, a paper on highway tree management was presented and the following adopted by Members:-

·                    Tree management procedure.

·                    Preparation and adoption of a tree policy.

·                    Purchase of the Confirm tree modules system.

·                    Use of preferred arboricultural contractors by all KHS partners

(2)       At HAB on 18 September 2007, a paper on a highway tree policy was presented and adopted by Members.  The purpose of this paper was to propose the adoption of a change in procedure when dealing with customer enquiries and complaints in respect of highway trees which would result in improved service delivery across a number of areas.

(3)       The adoption of a Highway Tree Policy had provided clarity in a number of areas of highway tree management and had provided a consistent approach to making decisions ensuring that priority was always given to safety issues.

(4)       From 1 April 2007 the arboricultural team took over the responsibility for all aspects of tree management including routine safety inspections and customer enquiries.  Work was ongoing with the KHS Contact Centre to ensure that customer calls were directed to the right place and were properly dealt with within the appropriate timescales.

(5)       437 Priority 1 (P1) calls had been received from the KHS Contact Centre and dealt with.  P1 calls involved trees that had failed or were in imminent danger of failing and average response time had been well under two hours.

(6)       Approximately 2500 Priority 2 (P2) calls had been received.  P2 calls related to general, rather than legal nuisance issues. Safety issues were always dealt with as P1.  Approximately 25% of the P2 calls had resulted in some form of remedial works on site.  General nuisance issues included leaf and seed fall, sap deposition, blocking of light and interference with television reception.  The total volume of calls for 07/08 was anticipated to be in the region of 4000.

(7)       A number of calls were filtered out by the Contact Centre but generally all tree related calls came through to the arboricultural team for attention.  A number were dealt with immediately by letter or by telephone with an explanation that the type of problem indicated was not one that a responsible tree owner was required to deal with or that the works did not fall under the remit of KHS e.g. clearance of overhead services.  The remainder of calls required an inspection.   These were grouped into geographical  areas  to ensure best use of time and travel resources.  An analysis of figures from April 2007 showed that in 75% of cases the inspection resulted in a decision not to carry out any works.  The main reasons were that the complaint or enquiry had been overstated or was a general nuisance issue, as outlined above, that KHS was not required to deal with.  The 25% requiring works was generally related to trees in decline, vehicular damage, vandalism and other non predictable events.

(8)       The process of managing calls was a drain on the resources available to manage and enhance the highway tree stock.  Due to the volume of P2 enquiries and the need to prioritise P1 visits and works there could be a delay before a response was given to the enquirer.  The delay often led to an expectation that works would be undertaken.  Customer feedback in the event that no works were undertaken was often critical of the delay rather than the decision.

(9)       KHS met its duty of care by undertaking regular safety inspections of all highway trees based on the classification of the road.  Current inspection frequencies were two years and five years.  The asset database was an ongoing project and as it was developed it was likely that inspection frequencies would be refined to align with an identified risk.  Current information recorded related only to trees requiring works but all trees were inspected and the inspection date recorded.

(10)     The asset database would include information on tree characteristics and dimensions and actions would include an assessment by an inspector that, under normal circumstances, would take the tree through to the next inspection cycle.

(11)     The current and future inspection processes were robust and defendable and took into account the period until the next inspection.  There should be no need, under normal circumstances, to undertake tree works between inspection cycles except for emergency and programmed cyclical maintenance works.  On the same basis there should be no need to carry out additional tree inspections between inspection cycles.  Customers should be given details of the inspection frequency and the date of the last inspection along with a copy of the ‘Understanding leaflet – How we look after trees on the highway’.

(12)     Where an enquiry related to a changed circumstance, such as disease or physical damage to a tree, then an interim inspection would be undertaken and the records updated.  It was likely that some customers would, despite the justification of the process, complain about the lack of an inspection linked directly to their enquiry.  Some customers would exaggerate the safety aspects of an enquiry to ensure that an inspection was undertaken.  Both these issues existed within the current system of enquiries and should have no significant impact on the revised process.  Overall the level of customer satisfaction was expected to increase with a quicker decision making process that still took into account safety of the highway.

(13)     Based on a typical year the revised process would reduce the reactive calls requiring a visit or action from 4000 to 1000.  The 3000 calls would receive a prompt response and call closure.  The savings in resources would be diverted to the safety audit process, programmed maintenance and replanting programme and in particular the requirements of the New Roads and Street Works Act from 1 April 2008.

(14)     The Board approved:-

(a)       the adoption of the revised process for dealing with customer enquiries; and

(b)       the use of savings from the revised approach for other elements of the tree management and enhancement programme.