Concerns grass cutting cost will be ‘palmed off’ to towns and villages
Residents and councillors raised concerns over reduced service levels
There are concerns the cost of grass cutting will be “palmed off” to towns and villages as borough chiefs decided not to reinstate its previous level of service.
Tewkesbury Borough Council agreed this week to work with towns and villages to take on grass cutting and will not be reinstating its grass cutting service on Gloucestershire County Council land.
Residents and councillors raised concerns over reduced service levels after the historic grass cutting arrangement between the Borough Council and Shire Hall came to an end recently.
The County Council only provides two cuts per year while the Borough Council used to cut between eight to 12 times a year while parishes have adopted varied approaches.
This has led to inconsistency and community dissatisfaction.
As a result, civic chiefs this week debated three options for the Borough regarding grass cutting for the next two years.
They agreed to work with and support parish councils to take over responsibility for grass cutting either by working with the County Council or arranging their own contractors.
This is instead of reverting back to carrying out all grass cutting which would have cost an extra £74,000 to deliver the service for the next financial year and £110,000 in investment for vehicles.
Another option was to simply continue as is with the County Council cutting its land twice per year.
Councillor Murray Stewart (LD, Cleeve West), environmental services lead member, presented the report at thte meeting on September 30.
He said the preferred option two “strikes the right balance” and was about partnership and will allow parish councils to have more control over grass cutting in their areas.
“It’s flexible and reflects local priorities and avoids placing additional burdens on the budget,” he said.
“Most importantly in my opinion it gives parishes the time they need to budget and reach agreement with Gloucestershire County Council in a way that works for their communities.
“We know some parish councils are already doing this. It will be a case by case basis working with them directly.”
Councillor Mike Sztymiak (I, Tewkesbury North and Twyning) said during the debate that grass cutting is important to the public.
He said Mitton was severely impacted by the lack of grass cutting.
“It reflects where they live and the general sort of tidiness and everything else about where they live.
“The entrances to towns are absolutely vital to the impression of the whole town.
“If it looks like a mess they are going to go straight through that town because you ain’t gonna stop.”
He proposed going with the third option to continue grass cutting.
“Otherwise it’s going to be a bit of a mess,” he said.
“All we are doing is cutting a service level for which residents are currently paying their council taxes for.
“They have been cutting the grass for 50 years on Mitton and all of a sudden they are going to see the withdrawal of that service and the cost imposed on the parish.”
Cllr Sarah Hands (LD, Innsworth) said all councillors have sight and vote on the budget each year.
She said if the council did not spend the funding on grass cutting they could provide vouchers for 4,933 pensioners in poverty to help pay for food and fuel.
“There are people in here that ask we pay £74,000 for the next two years on cutting grass because some areas want it but others don’t”, she said.
Cllr Jason Mills (I, Brockworth East) said there are only two years left of Tewkesbury Borough Council and questioned why they are stopping the cutting of grass they have mowed for 50 years.
“I support option three to save face and keep the grass cutting as it’s going,” he said.
Cllr Stewart Dove (LD, Churchdown St John’s) said he felt embarrassed that they were talking about mowing again.
He said he would be backing option two.
“I’ve not had a single person say to me, goodness me, I wish you cut the grass better,” he said.
Cllr David Gray (C, Winchcombe) said he supported option two.
“For me it comes to subsidiarity,” he said. “It’s at the level of individual parishes, streets and communities.
“The parish is the best place to deal with those issues.”
This motion was rejected by 25 votes to six with one abstention.
“I don’t think it’s working in partnership, we are just palming it off to someone else to let them pick up the tab,” Cllr Sztymiak.
“I think it’s wrong, it’s immoral.”
A subsequent proposal to go with the preferred option passed by 23 votes to six with three abstentions.