Agenda item

To receive and respond to the findings of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee‘s review of the quarter four performance management information.  

That the Overview and Scrutiny Committee’s comments on the Performance Management Report for Quarter Four of 2016/17 be NOTED.   

23.1           The report of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee Chair, circulated at Pages No. 18-55, asked Members to review and, if appropriate, take action on the observations of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee following its review of the 2016/17 quarter four performance management information.

23.2           Attention was drawn to the observations made by the Overview and Scrutiny Committee, attached to the report at Appendix 1, and to the Council Plan Performance Tracker, attached at Appendix 2 to the report.

23.3           The Overview and Scrutiny Committee Chair explained that progress on Council performance during the fourth and final quarter of the year was generally good with some key areas of excellent performance. Of particular note were the launch of a new Economic Development and Tourism Strategy; a five year extension to Gloucestershire County Council’s leases in the Public Services Centre; and the procurement of a new £3.5 million waste and recycling vehicle fleet. Members were also made aware of areas that had not progressed as planned which included rolling out a programme of customer services training for staff across the Council; undertaking a discretionary trade waste service review to ensure it was operating on a viable commercial level; and delivering phase 2 of the planning and environmental health service review. He felt Members had done an excellent job of scrutinising the report and, as a result, there had been a wide range of questions asked; the full list of those questions, and the subsequent responses from Officers, had been attached as an Appendix to the current report. A Member had asked what was happening with the J9 area as well as what pieces of work were being commissioned and, in response, the Head of Development Services had advised that Officers were trying to understand the future potential of the area; especially given the Ministry of Defence plans for the Ashchurch camp had changed. It had been explained that there were currently three pieces of work being carried out which included looking at what interventions could be used; undertaking a visioning exercise looking at the aspirations of the area; and looking at what could be achieved through masterplanning. Those three pieces of work would help to ensure the whole site was properly planned which was important for the entire Borough as well as the growth zone itself. A Member had asked what was meant by a ‘change in direction’ for the regeneration of Spring Gardens and, in response, the Head of Finance and Asset Management had explained that, originally, the Council had intended to develop the site itself but this was no longer a viable option; a report would be submitted to the Executive Committee to ask Members to confirm the position they wished to take going forward. Another Member had questioned how many members of staff were undertaking NVQ qualifications and whether they were internally or externally assessed. The Communications and Policy Manager had explained that all staff undertaking NVQs were externally assessed. Whilst not all Customer Services staff had signed up to do the NVQ, those that had done had achieved the qualification. In addition, Members were advised that customer services training would be provided for all frontline staff across the Council over the coming months. In terms of Key Performance Indicators, a Member had asked whether the downturn in performance for the number of days to process new benefit claims was a consequence of the restructure of the team. The Head of Revenues and Benefits advised that, while performance had not been as good as the previous year, it remained in the top quartile nationally and the Council remained the envy of other local Councils in the country. The restructure of the team would have an impact but the changes were being made with Universal Credit in mind, which would take away a lot of the work the team currently did – there would most likely be a reduction of 50% of claims overall. In terms of planning and the percentage of minor applications determined within eight weeks, a Member noted that performance had slightly improved but was still over the target due to the turnover of staff and the Member had questioned if there was an underlying reason for the high staff turnover. The Head of Development Services explained that there was a lot of work being carried out to fully staff the team, and they were considering ways that recruitment could be improved. The Chief Executive advised that Councils had been in competition with the private sector for some time; however, the Council had been doing reasonably well in retaining and attracting new staff recently which was encouraging. A Member questioned why short-term absence had worsened and whether this was the reason she found it hard to speak to members of staff in the building. The Head of Corporate Services had explained that there were a number of things being considered to address this, including a review of the Absence Management Policy and the introduction of a new HR system which would more effectively record absence. In terms of not being able to speak to staff within the building, the Chief Executive said this should not be an ongoing issue and, if Members had any specific examples, he would be pleased to hear them after the meeting as this would enable him to establish whether there was a wider problem.

23.4           As this was the final quarter performance report for 2016/17, the Overview and Scrutiny Committee Chair took the opportunity to recognise the hard work of his Committee throughout the year. A wide range of excellent work had been undertaken, as identified in the annual report which had been approved by Council on 16 May, and he looked forward to another exciting year of scrutiny ahead in 2017/18. Another Member agreed with this view and felt that the thorough questioning of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee was a great help to the Executive Committee.

23.5           During the discussion which ensued, a Member explained that, at a previous meeting, the Council’s new Economic Development and Tourism Strategy had been adopted. The Member indicated that there had been a very successful launch of the strategy the previous evening at Porsche in Tewkesbury. He felt the event had allowed the Council to successfully engage with local businesses and he had been pleasantly surprised at the attendance level. The main issue which businesses had fed back was the lack of available employment land in the area. The Tewkesbury: Better Connected for Business video had been shown and the Member felt it had worked really well and was a professional way of putting the Council’s strategy into context. The Head of Development Services agreed and advised that Officers had picked up quite a lot of leads in terms of contacts and areas they could follow-up to enable them to support businesses to grow and remain within Tewkesbury Borough.

23.6           Referring to affordable housing, a Member expressed concern at the growth of ‘affordable rents’ in comparison to other affordable tenures such as social rent, shared ownership and discounted sale. He felt there were areas where affordable rents were just too high and he questioned whether this was going to be the Council’s preferred tenure moving forward. In response, the Strategic Housing and Enabling Officer explained that Section 106 Agreements secured the affordable rent value for a development and Officers tried to ensure that was set within benefit levels. In terms of the level of affordable rents she advised that they tended to include a service charge whereas social rent levels were lower but the service charge was paid separately. The Member questioned whether residents were getting value for money where service charges were concerned and, in response, it was explained that it was up to the individual tenants to ensure this was the case. The schedule of works could be requested by the tenant so they could see what they were paying for and make certain they were receiving value for money. In response to other queries regarding service charges, the Strategic Housing and Enabling Officer advised that they tended to be charged on a site-wide basis. Sometimes the Registered Social Landlord was responsible for the charges and sometimes it was the management company. At the moment the charge was around £150 per year but this varied from place to place and was negotiated on a site by site basis. No service charges could be set without being agreed by the Council and Officers looked at everything to try and ensure it was fair. Service charges were usually for things like un-adopted roads, security gates, communal areas, play areas, public open spaces etc. – the tenants themselves were responsible for their own gardens. Service charges had existed for quite a long time and the Strategic Housing and Enabling Officer had worked out that social rent plus a service charge tended to be around £5.00 more a week than affordable rents, particularly where this was capped at the Local Housing Allowance rate. Bungalows could be a real problem in terms of affordability as rents tended to be expensive due to the large footprint that they covered – in those cases the Strategic Housing and Enabling Officer tried to work with partners to bring the rents down to a level where they would be affordable. The government was pushing authorities to move from social rent to affordable rent and any voids tended to be put forward for affordable rent so this was becoming a popular approach.

23.7           Accordingly, it was