Issue - meetings

With reference to the report submitted to the Committee, the Chairman indicated that Councillors with specific queries about performance indicators had been asked to submit these to the report author in advance of the meeting to enable an explanation to be given at the meeting. 

The Policy Officer introduced the item and advised the meeting that previously the performance monitoring report had been considered by the Corporate Governance and Standards Committee.  In addition to the initial review of indicators in Quarter 4, with reference to section 4.7 of the report the Committee was informed that a workshop to further consider the set of key performance indicators against the key themes, priorities, and core values within the Corporate Plan had been re-scheduled to early November 2022. 

A member of the Committee suggested the value of some pre-COVID information to give additional context to some of the performance indicators.  In response, the Policy Officer advised that such information tended to be shown for the previous five quarters only, but could be provided going back further for certain indicators in future reports if requested. 

Members of the Committee familiar with the report through membership of the Corporate Governance and Standards Committee stressed the need to submit questions in advance of the meeting and the value in qualitative measures to monitor performance.

The Chairman thanked the Policy Officer for attending the meeting.                 

RESOLVED:  That the contents of the report submitted to the Committee, along with the Performance Monitoring Report for quarter 1 of 2022/23 attached as appendix 1, be noted.

The Committee considered the Corporate Performance Monitoring Report (in relation to quarter 4 of 2021-22), which had been submitted as part of the Council’s evolving performance monitoring framework, together with the proposed revisions to the indicators for 2022-23. 

The Committee generally welcomed the ongoing improvements to the presentation of the report and the information therein.

During the debate, the following points were made:

·       It was noted that decline in Town Centre footfall (H&J18) mirrored the position elsewhere in the country

·       Concern over poor performance of Council Suppliers paid within 30 days (COU3).

·       In response to a question on the estimated number of new homes completed for social rent to be delivered over the next five years, the Deputy Leader of the Council and Lead Councillor for Community and Housing undertook to provide the information to the questioner.

·       Concern over the increasing number of void days under the ‘Average time to let void housing properties’ PI (H&J1) and total number of empty homes in the borough (H&J2).  In relation to H&J1, more information was requested in respect of the Action Plan to address the issues and improve overall performance.

·       Whilst the intention to provide some metrics on pollution and particularly nitrogen dioxide concentration at monitoring sites, carbon dioxide emissions from council operations, and energy use by the Council (ENV 7-9) was welcomed, it was suggested that it would be beneficial to understand levels of carbon dioxide emissions across the borough, rather than only from council operations.

·       The Committee agreed that the ‘Nitrogen Dioxide concentration at Monitoring Site(s) at risk of exceeding limits (ENV 7) be retained in the list of indicators in the Performance Monitoring Report.

·       Concern over requirement for online reporting of flytipping and statutory nuisance and the need to ensure that older or more vulnerable members of the community, who might find reporting such matters online to be arduous or complicated, were still able to do so.

·       In response to a question as to whether planning applications were dealt with in order of verification or whether major applications were prioritised over householder applications, the Lead Councillor for Development Management confirmed that applications were not dealt with sequentially and that a separate team dealt with major applications, which meant that the speed at which major applications were dealt with was necessarily different to the other applications.  By implication, the major applications were larger and significantly more complex than other applications, and often be necessary to negotiate with the developers of major applications a separate time scale over and above the statutory limit of 13 weeks for determination.

·   Reiteration of request made at the last meeting that the Executive Summary in future reports should include information regarding particular indicators that were worth highlighting in terms of performance over the quarter.

The Committee, having reviewed the report and noted that future reports would be submitted to the Overview and Scrutiny Committee,

RESOLVED: That the contents of the report along with the Performance Monitoring Report for  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6

The Committee considered the Corporate Performance Monitoring Report (in relation to quarter 3 of 2021-22), which had been submitted as part of the Council’s evolving performance monitoring framework.

The Committee had previously requested that these reports should differentiate between indicators that the Council directly controlled in terms of its own service performance and those broader outcome measures in relation to the health of the borough.  Officers were currently reviewing all indicators, which would result in a revised set of indicators with effect from quarter 1 in 2022-23.

During the debate, the following points were made:

• In response to concern over lack of data in respect of ENV 5 to ENV 8, it was noted that this was data collected annually and would be included in the next report in respect of quarter 4.
• In response to concern relating to the usefulness of COM3 (number of community hot meals delivered), it was noted this would be reviewed as part of the officer review referred to above as it was felt that this metric was a measure of demand rather than a measure of performance.
• In relation to COU2 (staff turnover), an enquiry was made as to steps being taken to ensure staff retention and maintaining morale. The Lead Specialist – HR would be asked to circulate a response on this point to the Committee.
• As performance data should be a useful tool for Management, it was suggested that, noting the broad range of indicators included in the report, there should be a hierarchy of consolidated indicators which were the most important to the Council in terms of corporate priorities.  It was confirmed that this would be picked up as part of the review referred to above.
• It was suggested that the Executive Summary in future reports should include information regarding particular indicators that were worth highlighting in terms of performance over the quarter.

The Committee, having reviewed the report

RESOLVED: That the contents of the report along with the Performance Monitoring Report for 2021-22 quarter 3, shown in Appendix 1 thereto, be noted.

Reasons:

To support our corporate performance monitoring framework and enable the Committee to monitor the Council’s performance against key indicators, as well as review key data relating to the ‘health’ of the borough.

The Committee considered the Corporate Performance Monitoring Report (in relation to quarter 2 of 2021-22), which had been submitted as part of the Council’s evolving performance monitoring framework.

The Committee had been invited to submit comments and questions regarding the report itself and specific performance indicators in advance of the meeting, details of which, together the officer response, were included in the Supplementary Information Sheet circulated prior to the meeting.

The Leader of the Council commented that this was still an evolving process, but it was moving in the right direction in terms of active engagement by officers and councillors in addressing issues around key performance areas.

During the debate, the following points were made:

·       In response to a request for further information as to why the figure in respect of homeless families being placed in B&B accommodation was rising (H & J5), officers explained that the number of families in B&B temporary accommodation varied significantly throughout a typical month, and throughout the course of a year, the number would typically vary between zero and seven or eight.  It was suggested that this KPI might need to be altered perhaps showing an average amount of a time families occupied B&B accommodation.  It was noted, however, that as this KPI was a nationally recognised indicator an alternative option would be to provide background information to put the figures into context.  This would be clarified in future reports.

·       In relation to ENV3 (fly-tipping), it was noted that performance was going in the right direction, but more prompt information would be useful.

·       It was felt that the climate change officer’s role should not be collating data for ENV9 (energy use by the Council; gas, electricity and fleet), but should be far more proactive in looking at ways to improve our climate change position.  The Chairman asked whether a specialist was required to obtain and monitor this data, or whether there was insufficient staff capacity to monitor the data even though it was readily available.  A written response on these matters would be circulated to the Committee.

·       The Leader of the Council reassured the Committee that the Council was putting in place measures to work with Surrey County Council and Waverley Borough Council in order to maximise resources on our climate change agendas, but it was important that decisions made were based on reliable performance data.

·       In relation to H & J4 (Affordable new homes completed each year), officers agreed to separately identify new social housing and affordable housing completions by having separate targets for these in future reports.

·       In relation to COU2 (staff turnover), an enquiry was made as to whether there was a common theme emerging from exit surveys.  The Lead Specialist – HR would be asked to circulate a response on this point to the Committee.

·       In response to concerns regarding COU11 and COU12 (speed of determining planning applications), the Leader of the Council reported that the Council had spent in excess of £1million in additional staffing resource  ...  view the full minutes text for item 50

The Committee considered the second Corporate Performance Monitoring Report (in relation to quarter 4 of 2020-21), which had been submitted as part of the Council’s new performance monitoring framework.

The first Performance Monitoring Report presented to the Committee on 25 March 2021 had been received positively by Corporate Management Team and the Committee and had prompted a good discussion with the Committee about the Performance Indicators (PIs) and information which would be useful in future, as well as constructive feedback.

In particular, Councillors were keen for the report to include commentary where PIs were not meeting a target/not heading in the preferred direction of travel. This information had now been requested from Service Leads when they submit their PI data in their Service Plans and was included in the report where it had been provided. 

Following feedback, officers had also made some changes to the report to ensure it was more clearly presented, including re-designing the RAG rating symbols to be more accessible and removing targets/preferred direction of travel when it was not relevant to the PI.  Unfortunately, the report for quarter 4 was still showing some PIs without data (for a variety of reasons) and where this was due to data not being provided, Directors had been made aware.

The Committee had been invited to submit comments and questions regarding the report itself and specific performance indicators in advance of the meeting, details of which, together the officer response, were included in the Supplementary Information Sheet circulated prior to the meeting.

During the debate, the following points were made:

·       Concern over the persistent lack of data provided in respect of a number of PIs

·       Suggestion that future reports show performance over the previous five quarters on a rolling basis so that comparisons can be made with the same quarter in the previous year

·       In response to concern expressed over the average time to let void housing properties (COM10), officers confirmed that performance in letting properties had been affected by the Covid pandemic over the past 12 months, but performance was expected to improve significantly moving forward

·       In response to a suggestion that there should be a broader spectrum of environmental monitoring across the Borough, not just monitoring of Council activities or operations, officers stated that the current performance metrics represented the data that the Council was readily able to access and monitor and that work was being undertaken to develop better and wider monitoring benchmarks.  Further information on how these metrics were being developed would be shared with councillors.

The Committee, having reviewed the report

RESOLVED: That the contents of the report along with the Performance Monitoring Report for 2020-21 quarter 4, shown in Appendix 1 thereto, be noted.

Reasons:

To support our new corporate performance monitoring framework and enable the Committee to monitor the Council’s performance against key indicators, as well as review key data relating to the ‘health’ of the borough.