The Policy and Performance Review Board (PPRB) met to discuss management of highway grass verges, the community toilet scheme, domestic retrofits, and the use of artificial intelligence (AI). The board agreed to several recommendations, including further investigation of resident concerns regarding grass verge management, exploring options to improve the community toilet scheme, and continuing to monitor the implementation of domestic retrofit initiatives. The board also requested a follow-up report on AI in the coming years.

Management of Highway Grass Verges

The Environment, Sustainability, Culture and Sports Committee asked the PPRB to review the implementation of environmentally sympathetic approaches to managing highway grass verges. The council introduced the approaches in 2021, alongside a communications campaign to explain the benefits.

Tom Alexander, introduced the report, explaining that the new approach aims to use verges to connect different green spaces, which helps with climate action, air quality, carbon capture and improving the general environment.

Charlotte Harris, the nature conservation manager at Habitats and Heritage, spoke about the biodiversity side of verges and their citizen science verge monitoring project. She explained that verges act as green corridors connecting larger habitats and provide pit stops for pollinators. Harris stated that the best way to manage verges for wildlife is to manage them like hay meadows, which means cutting them less often and removing the cuttings to reduce the nutrient level in the soil.

Dona Telasrati, a resident of Richmond, spoke about her experience as a citizen scientist monitoring verges in Barnes. She noted a difference in the verges north and south of Victoria Gate. She said that residents cultivate the verges north of Victoria Gate, and that residents south of Victoria Gate are more welcoming of the verge monitoring project.

Following the presentations, the board discussed several issues, including:

• Indicator species Councillor Alan Juriansz, Vice-Chair, Environment, Sustainability, Culture and Sports Committee and Lead Member for Sport, asked for more information about the differences between positive and negative indicator species. Harris explained that positive indicator species are ones that show a verge with lower levels of nutrients in the soil and higher diversity, while negative indicator species are ones that show signs of eutrophication¹ and high nutrient levels.
• Nutrient levels Councillor Jonathan Cardy, Chair of the Planning Committee, asked what should be done about negative indicator species. Harris said that it would be a case of reducing the nutrient level over time by removing the cut matter when the verges are cut.
• Dog fouling Councillor Katie Mansfield, Richmond Town Centre Project Lead Member and White Ribbon Champion, raised concerns about dog fouling increasing nutrient levels on verges. Harris suggested educating dog walkers about where they could let their dogs urinate.
• Aesthetics Councillor Mansfield also raised concerns that residents think it looks awful when the growth in the verges is let to grow. Harris said that it will take a number of years to start seeing a visible difference, but that meadows can take decades or hundreds of years to fully form. She suggested that a local seed mix could be used to supplement the verges to create some change faster if there is an area where people are very against it.
• Dry spells and fire hazards Councillor Rhi Lee asked how to prepare for long, dry spells and to cut down on fire hazards. Harris said that areas managed more positively for wildlife can be more resilient when it comes to climate, and that the council did cut slightly earlier last year because it was a very dry summer.
• Signage Councillors suggested that signage be used to educate people about the benefits of the rural cut, and to explain what is happening on the verges.
• Mowing strips Councillor Mansfield asked whether a strip of cut grass could be left on the edge of the verges to address concerns about dogs and other issues. It was noted that this could defeat the object of reducing the council's carbon footprint, but that it could be considered where there are safety considerations.
• Civic pride Councillor Elizabeth Gant, Vice-Chair, said that people often feel that neat and tidy verges are a way of taking civic pride in their area, and that long, unruly verges smack of neglect rather than nature.
• Resident involvement Councillor Suzette Nicholson asked what the council does about verges that residents have cut themselves. It was suggested that improving interpretation and signage could help to change people's perceptions and encourage them to buy into the idea.
• Litter Councillor Nicholson asked what the council does about litter getting stuck in the long grass. It was explained that the council's contractor is contracted to litter pick the verge before they cut it, and that street cleansing colleagues also litter pick on the road verges.

The board made the following recommendations:

• That the council consider signage to explain the benefits of the rural cut.
• That the council involve schools, Duke of Edinburgh scheme participants, and other young people in the verge monitoring project.
• That the council provide regular updates on the council website about what's flowering in the verges.
• That the council consider mowing a strip down the side of the verges where there is a safety consideration.
• That the council bolster communication about the benefits of the rural cut.

The report was submitted for discussion by the PPRB to inform further improvements in the management of highways verges. Any recommendations made by the PPRB will be submitted to the Environment, Sustainability, Culture and Sports Committee for their consideration.

Community Toilet Scheme

The PPRB reviewed progress on actions proposed to improve the Community Toilet Scheme (CTS). The CTS provides financial compensation to businesses that allow public access to their toilet facilities for free.

Sada Elmi, Waste Projects Officer, presented the report, outlining progress made since March 2025, including promoting the scheme to the public, recruiting new businesses, and managing the scheme.

The board discussed several issues, including:

• Google Maps Councillor Caroline Wren asked whether facilities could be listed on Google Maps, but Elmi explained that some businesses are concerned about being overwhelmed with customers. It was suggested that businesses could have the option to opt in or out of being listed on Google Maps.
• GP surgeries Councillor Cardy suggested making information about the scheme available to GP surgeries.
• Collaboration with neighbouring boroughs Councillor Cardy also suggested collaborating with neighbouring boroughs to deal with boundary areas where there might be a convenient toilet just over the border.
• Increase in payments Councillor Mansfield expressed concern about a proposed 25% increase in payments to businesses, suggesting that other options, such as a package of support, should be considered. Other councillors suggested a sliding scale of payments based on the facilities provided.
• Evaluation Councillor Juriansz asked whether there was any way of assessing how much of an increase businesses see in the use of their toilets. Elmi said that it was hard to figure out who is actually using the facilities as a non-customer, but that she was thinking about organising focus groups and putting a survey on the council website to get feedback.
• Business testimonials Councillor Wren suggested using business testimonials to try to persuade additional facilities to come on board.
• Signage Councillors discussed the possibility of using pavement stencils and other signage to promote the scheme.
• Gender neutral signs Councillor Lee suggested increasing the signage so it's a bit more inclusive and offers something that's self gender neutral on it as well as just male and female.

The board made the following suggestions:

• That the council put some participants on Google Maps, with an opt-in option for businesses.
• That the council have maps in GP surgeries.
• That the council collaborate with neighbouring boroughs to deal with boundary areas.
• That the council review the need for a £200 increase in payments to businesses, and consider other options such as a package of support or a sliding scale of payments.
• That the council use stencils and other signage to promote the scheme, including gender neutral signs.

The board asked to review and comment on current progress made to improve the CTS.

Update on Recommendations of the Domestic Retrofit Task and Finish Group

The PPRB received an update on the implementation of the recommendations of the Domestic Retrofit Task and Finish Group. The group made 16 recommendations, which were presented to the Environment, Sustainability, Culture and Sport Committee in February 2025.

Andrew Hagger, Head of Climate Change and Sustainability, reported that good progress had been made, including the appointment of a community retrofit officer, Diana Zimi, and a communications resource, Kat Wright. He said that a Smarter Homes Hub is being developed to bring all the information around retrofit into one place, and that a supplementary planning document is in development.

The board discussed several issues, including:

• Communications strategy Councillor Mansfield asked when the communications strategy would be starting. Hagger said that it would be starting imminently, and that it had been deliberately staggered to follow the recruitment of the community retrofit officer.
• Search engine optimisation Councillor Mansfield also raised concerns about search engine optimisation, saying that when she searched for retrofit Richmond she only found architectural practices.
• Smarter Homes Hub Councillor Gant asked for an update on the Smarter Homes Hub. Hagger said that he did not have a date yet, but that he would communicate it to the board once he knew.
• Warm Homes: Local Grant scheme Councillor Juriansz asked about the grants available for low-income households. Hagger explained that the grants would be for the full cost of retrofit, and that eligibility would be based on income and EPC² rating.
• Planning team awareness It was confirmed that the planning team, conservation officers and urban design officers are all fully aware of the council's policy on retrofit.
• Free sustainability advice Councillor Gant said that the planning website does not seem to be very clear in terms of offering free sustainability advice to people wanting to take retrofit projects.
• Measurable goals Councillor Wren said that she wondered whether the council was doing enough to set itself goals to make sure that it was moving fast enough in terms of retrofit.
• Name of the hub Councillor Wren also raised concerns about the name of the hub, saying that it was difficult to get right and that smarter homes might be associated with smart meters.

The board noted the updates in the report and provided feedback on progress, with a focus on making information more accessible.

Artificial Intelligence

The PPRB discussed the use of artificial intelligence (AI) solutions in Richmond upon Thames Council.

Sam Olsen, Executive Director Change and Innovation, presented the report, explaining what AI is, how it's different from Large Language Models (LLMs), showcasing current and future projects, and highlighting the risks.

Olsen explained that AI encompasses systems or machines capable of performing tasks that typically require human intelligence, such as reasoning, learning, problem-solving, perception, and natural language understanding. LLMs are a subset of AI with a focus on language processing.

The council is already using AI solutions such as spam filters, Govtech, and spell checking. The council also conducted a trial of Microsoft 365 Copilot, an AI assistant integrated into Microsoft Office applications. In Adult Social Care, a pilot of an AI solution to assist in the generation of assessments and handle follow-ups for unpaid carers is underway. The council has also been selected to trial an AI meeting assistant called Minute.

Looking ahead, there are several upcoming AI developments and potential use of AI technologies, including the Digital Blueprints initiative, AI voice agents, and automating routine processes.

Olsen noted that while the opportunities enabled by AI are significant, deploying AI solutions comes with a range of challenges and risks, including data security and privacy, legal compliance and ethics, and skilling and awareness.

The board discussed several issues, including:

• Productive use Councillor Warren asked how AI could be used productively. Olsen said that it was important to give staff an opportunity to test and trial AI tools, and that different tools have different ways in which they are introduced into the organisation.
• Language Councillor Cardy asked whether AI would give the council the opportunity to communicate with people in a whole bunch of different languages. Olsen said that it would, and that the ability to translate word documents and letters is very much the direction of travel.
• Predictive modelling Councillor Mansfield asked about the 14 opportunities where the council has looked at predictive modelling, and what the council is doing with those areas now. Olsen said that the council is doing business cases for each of those areas, and that it is also looking at the energy consumption of AI.
• Employment implications Councillor Nicholson asked what the employment implications are for staff. Olsen said that there will be a decision for the council to make with each new piece of technology that it brings in, and that it is important to think about the service design end-to-end every time a new piece of technology is introduced.
• Human contact Councillor Wren said that she was nervous about some of the areas where the council is talking about deploying virtual assistants and AI solutions on the front line, and that she worried that carers may feel the loss of that human interaction. Olsen said that it is important to ensure that the right technology is aligned to the right individual, and that there is a skill set in place to ensure that the service is personalised to the right resident.
• CCTV Councillor Cardy asked how close AI is to being able to interact with CCTV. Olsen said that it is not a piece of work that the council is looking at at the moment, and that it is an area with legal complexity and human rights concerns.
• Accuracy Councillor Nicholson asked how the council will scrutinise AI to make sure the answers are factually correct. Olsen said that you should never expect a piece of technology to be your final fail safe on the right answer for anything, and that AI is there to help collate large amounts of information, not to answer questions for the council.
• Training It was suggested that councillors and staff need training in AI, particularly with regards to security.
• Data security Councillor Cardy raised concerns about the security of data within the council, and the risk that AI could be used to create information that gets past security measures.

The board agreed to note the report and offer feedback on the issues raised, including the loss of human contact, the need for training, the need for control over AI, the use of AI for language, and the environmental impact. The board also requested a follow-up report in a year's time.

Work Programme

The board discussed the work programme for future meetings. Councillor Nicholson suggested that the board take a look at selective licensing for smaller HMOs³. Councillor Cardy suggested that the board look at the issue from a number of different perspectives, including planning, transport, housing, and education. It was agreed that the chair would approach the relevant service committees to see if they would be happy for the PPRB to discuss the issue.