Agenda item

This report outlines the strategic approach being developed for a Public Realm Maintenance & Project Works Contract for all Council Public Realm works from April 2026.

In the absence of Ian Hawthorn, Assistant Director Highways, Mark Raisbeck, Director of Public Realm, provided a presentation. This outlined the strategic approach being developed for a Public Realm Maintenance & Project Works Contract for all Council Public Realm works from April 2026. The presentation covered the following points:

• The scope of the Public Realm Contract -noting that it covered Highways, Parks & Consultancy Services
• The objectives of the new contract, noting it will:

1.    Align with LBHF’s Low Carbon Procurement Policy.

2.    Be accessible by Highways, Parks and Housing teams for efficient procurement and delivery of works.

3.    Incorporate Social Value.

4.    Focus on Apprenticeships.

5.    Incorporate Innovation – electrification of vehicles, recycling, sustainability, decarbonisation.

6.    Deliver quality public space – in line with the Council's StreetSmart guide.

7.    Deliver against a suite of KPI's to maximise efficient delivery of the contracts.

• An overview of the Lot Structure.
• Details of the developmental timescales for the new contract.

Councillor Adam Peter Lang noted that there were two potential contract options, and he supported officer’s views. Mark Raisbeck confirmed that a Transport for London framework contract could be used as a fallback position for highways works, but this was not the preferred option. In relation to drainage, Councillor Adam Peter Lang suggested that this was an area that needed to be looked at differently (within the new contract) in future, as residents had expressed their concerns on this to him. He also highlighted future employment opportunities and suggested that each contract winner should be asked to commit to a specific number of apprenticeships.

Acknowledging that the Policy and Accountability Committee meeting was not the right forum, Councillor Adam Peter Lang highlighted he had received a number of complaints about Lime and Forrest e-bikes and he asked if it was possible that a pan-London approach could be taken to regulation.

Turning to public realm issues, and specifically street lighting, Councillor Adam Peter Lang explained how this impacted on residents. He highlighted how improved street lighting could have a positive impact on the night-time economy and also improve public safety.

In relation to drainage, Mark Raisbeck commented that the work officers were doing on Suds and flood alleviation was very important and the Council required a contractor that could deliver and communicate with the residents effectively, which was one of the softer sides officers were looking for in the procurement process.

With regards to street lighting, Mark Raisbeck commented that the borough had

some excellent levels of street lighting and, generally speaking, the Council exceeded the minimum standards. However, there were always some locations where this could be improved. He highlighted that officers were currently doing extensive surveys across parks and open spaces to ensure lighting was of an appropriate standard and again, ensuring the right contractor, with the right skills could deliver the contract was very important to the Council.

With regards to apprenticeships, Councillors noted that officers wished to explore opportunities with not just young people, but for a whole range of people within local communities. And in relation to e-bikes, Mark Raisbeck confirmed that officers were working very hard to try and manage these in a more appropriate way. Councillor Liz Collins echoed the Committee’s concerns about e-bikes and in particular that there wasn’t a telephone number residents could use for these to be removed when they had been discarded in front of residents’ driveways. In response, Bram Kainth, Executive Director of Place explained that the Council had advertised a contact number to report issues, had removed bikes and also fined some operators, but this was not a sustainable approach. Bram Kainth agreed a pan-London approach to e-bikes was needed in the future.

Collin Liz Collins asked about the co-ordination of street works to ensure that residents were kept informed and steps were taken to minimise disruption to highways. In response, Mark Raisbeck provided details of the ongoing work by the co-ordination team and liaison with outside agencies to address residents’ queries.

Councillor Jackie Borland noted that the previous Highways Contract had awarded  

five out of six of the lots to FM Conway, but now the Council was considering splitting these up. She asked about compliance to industry standards and which approach had become the norm. In response, Mark Raisbeck confirmed the Council had done some benchmarking and looked at what other Local Authorities were doing. Some had decided to adopt one provider which provided all services, whereas others had selected up to ten different contractors, each one providing different services. Based on the challenges both approaches posed, Mark Raisbeck confirmed that the Council was aiming to take a middle ground approach which offered flexibility. He confirmed that the market engagement work was going to be the key, because ultimately the Council wanted competition and a sustainable contract.

Councillor Jackie Borland asked about the rationale behind splitting the lighting and highway contractor as she felt a joined-up approach was preferable. In response, Mark Raisbeck confirmed the Council might end up with one provider for both, which we have now, but the highways contractor, sub-contracts the lighting work because it’s a specialist area. By allowing separate bids for the different elements at this stage it gives the specialist lighting providers the opportunity to tender independent of the larger highway contractors.

Councillor Ashok Patel asked several questions. Firstly, he noted that the Council had been working with FM Conways since 2017 and asked for performance information. Secondly, he supported the idea of amalgamating three contracts into one; but asked what the likely savings would be. Finally, in the selection and award criteria, he noted that the criteria were going to be based on price, quality and social value. He suggested that price was the most important factor given the cost-conscious times.

In response, Mark Raisbeck confirmed in relation to costs, that prices had changed considerably recently, both in terms of workforce and materials and the Council anticipated costs to rise significantly. This was why officers were trying to expand the scope of the contract, to make it as attractive as possible to potential bidders.

Mark Raisbeck provided details of the reasons why Westminster had chosen to withdraw from a joint procurement of the contract with LBHF. In relation to the selection criteria, he confirmed the standard approach was a 60% quality, 40% price but that could be reviewed following market engagement. It was noted that social value was included within the 60%.

In relation to the timetable, Councillor Ashok Patel asked if this would be brought back to the Committee. In response, Mark Raisbeck confirmed that officers would be pleased to provide a further update in due course. Bram Kainth added the caveat, that when the procurement exercise had begun, officers could only report back at the end of the exercise to protect the process.

Councillor Rory Vaughan noted the contract would last for seven years, to give contractors a certain length of time to recoup fixed costs and to make it attractive as a contract bid. He asked what ability officers would have to negotiate, or to manage out if there was a problem with one of the contractors. And also, he noted that there was going to be a wider range of contractors, which would increase the pressure on officers to manage those contracts, especially with specialist contracts in some areas.

In response, Mark Raisbeck confirmed that in relation to the management of contractors, the Council was currently managing four contractors, and it would be surprising if the Council ended up with too many more. He explained how efficiencies could be made and cited street lighting and lighting in parks being provided by one contractor as an example. Officers felt they had struck the right balance between the number of specialisms in contract along with the number of Lots. He explained that the planned and reactive maintenance lot was a key aspect of the contract, which would apply across all those services of parks, as well as highways for example, so if there was a need to react quickly, then one contractor could address the work rather than multiple contractors being involved.

Councillor Rory Vaughan asked about key performance indicators on responsiveness, and when issues were raised by residents, such as lighting, how officers would measure the response and also build this into the contract. In response, Mark Raisbeck confirmed the Council currently had a monitoring regime and officers were in the process of looking at how this could be improved. He cited the fixing of potholes and complaints data from residents (prompting action) as examples of where the Council used a system called Confirm which provided the Council with data in terms of the contractor's performance. Mark Raisbeck confirmed that officers were constantly evaluating data and response times with a view to learning and improving in the future.

Councillor Rory Vaughan asked what the intended extra benefits of the contract would be, in terms of reacting more quickly or maintaining highways more effectively for example. And in relation to the SUDS scheme, for example, how often this was used to stop flooding in terms of climate change and the need for contractors to react on a more regular basis in the future (as the climate became warmer and wetter).

In response, Mark Raisbeck confirmed that officers would be looking at some of the wider objectives around the climate change agenda, such as how the contractors could reduce their emissions perhaps by moving to electric vehicles, looking at their general sustainability approach, and the recycling of materials to reduce the carbon footprint. He explained that officers would be looking for effective and efficient delivery at a value price. Further steps included improving communications with residents so that they knew when works were starting and engaging with residents when work was were due to be undertaken.

Summing up, Councillor Rory Vaughan thanked officers for providing a summary of the proposed contract and the steps which were being taken to provide better and consistent services to residents. He explained that the Committee would be interested to see how the bids were received and how matters developed in the future.

Resolved –

That the Committee to note and comment on the paper and presentation.