This is a default template, your custom branding appears to be missing.
The custom branding should be at https://tewkesbury.gov.uk/minutes/ if you cannot load this page please contact your IT.

Technical Error: Error: The remote server returned an error: (429) Too Many Requests.

Agenda item

Agenda item

Performance Management - Quarter 4 and Full Year 2017/18

To review and scrutinise the performance management information and, where appropriate, to require response or action from the Executive Committee. 

Minutes:

12.1           The report of the Head of Corporate Services, circulated at Pages No. 44-89, attached performance management information for quarter 4 of 2017/18.  The Overview and Scrutiny Committee was asked to review and scrutinise the performance information and, where appropriate, identify any issues to refer to the Executive Committee for clarification or further action to be taken. 

12.2           Members were advised that this was the fourth quarterly monitoring report for 2017/18 and progress against delivering the objectives and actions for each of the Council Plan priorities was reported through the Performance Tracker, attached at Appendix 1 to the report.  Key actions for the quarter were highlighted at Paragraph 2.3 of the report and included the Council’s commercial property portfolio which was now worth £31.09M and generated £1.1M of net income to support the Council’s budget in 2018/19; appointment of a Growth and Enterprise Manager in readiness for the introduction of the Growth Hub within the Public Service Centre; delivery of 233 affordable homes in 2017/18 above the annual target of 150; 227 homeless prevention cases meaning more households had been assisted to avoid homelessness than ever before; adoption of the Public Space Protection Order which was a key aspect of the Enviro-Crime Action Plan; and the garden waste project which was now in the final stages with almost 16,500 sticker licences sold, generating in excess of £742,000.  As always, due to the complex nature of the actions being delivered, it was inevitable that some would not progress as smoothly or quickly as envisaged and the details of these were set out at Paragraph 2.4 of the report.  Particular reference was made to the minor slippage in respect of the launch of the Growth Hub and letting out the top floor of the Public Service Centre.  With regard to the latter, it was noted that, since the report had been written, heads of terms had been agreed for a five year lease of one third of the remaining space on the top floor.  In terms of the Key Performance Indicators (KPIs), Members were informed that the status of each indicator was set out at Paragraph 3.2 of the report. Of the 15 indicators with targets, four had not been achieved as at the end of quarter 4.  Areas of interest included KPI 13 in relation to the percentage of ‘major’ planning applications determined within 13 weeks (or an alternative period agreed with the applicant) where the 2017/18 target and the 2016/17 outturn had been exceeded with 89.58% of applications being determined within the agreed timescales; KPI 19 which showed a significant reduction in the number of reported enviro-crimes compared to the previous year; KPI 28 which showed an increasing number of days being lost due to staff sickness – 10.5 days had been lost per full-time employee during the year which exceeded the previous year’s outturn and the seven day target set for 2017/18, however the figures had been impacted by a number of staff with critical illness who were on long-term sick leave; and KPIs 30 and 31 which showed that less residual waste had been collected than the previous year and the recycling rate had increased to 54.55% compared to 53.29% in the previous year – this was particularly positive given that many authorities had seen a downturn.

12.3           During the debate which ensued, the following queries and comments were made in relation to the Performance Tracker:

Priority: Finance and Resources

P56 – Objective 3 – Action b) – Undertake a review of the discretionary trade waste service to ensure that it is operating on a viable commercial level – A Member raised concern that this action had been delayed and he questioned why it was not being prioritised given that this had been highlighted as a potential opportunity to generate money for the Council.  He also questioned why the results of the marketing exercise had not been brought to Members so they could at least see what had been done to date.

The Head of Community Services explained that, whilst waiting for the final Association for Public Service Excellence (APSE) report that had been commissioned by the Council, it had been intended to do some initial marketing to try to uplift the amount of trade waste contractors; unfortunately, this had been delayed by an Officer going on maternity leave, which obviously could not be planned for.  Notwithstanding this, a different report had been commissioned by Ubico on behalf of the Joint Waste Team and it was felt that it may be advantageous to see if there were opportunities for joint working.  One of the partners was looking at the potential for a county-wide service and conversations were taking place with them to establish if this would be more beneficial than Tewkesbury Borough Council running its own service.  He advised that the garden waste project was now in its final stages so there would be additional resources available for the trade waste project and he confirmed that the results would be brought back to Members when the required information was available.

P57 – Objective 4 – Action b) Deliver the Council’s asset plan – A Member noted that the MAFF and Prior’s Park garage sites were included in the list of items within the plan but neither had been delivered and therefore he did not feel a happy face was justified.

The Head of Finance and Asset Management explained that, overall, delivery of the asset plan was on track.  A report on the MAFF site would be considered by the Executive Committee in July and there was ongoing engagement and discussion with Severn Vale Housing Society in relation to the Prior’s Park garage sites which could be brought back to Members as it developed.

Priority: Economic Development

Page No. 62 – Objective 4 – Action a) Develop a regeneration plan for Tewkesbury Town – A Member noted that the target date had been amended and questioned the significance of the new September date.

The Head of Development Services advised that this was in line with the Tewkesbury Town Regeneration Partnership meeting.  She explained that there was a draft plan which had been shared with the Partnership but it was important to ensure it was right before it was made public.

Page No. 62 – Objective 4 – Action b) Deliver a programme with partners to progress Healings Mill and other key sites to support the regeneration of Tewkesbury – A Member raised concern that it was taking some time to draw up a programme of action and sought clarification as to why.

The Head of Development Services explained that the action plan was constantly moving and a number of conversations were taking place with various parties including the owner, Homes England, the Environment Agency and Historic England etc.  The Council’s new Conservation Officer had been tasked with looking at the conservation and heritage aspect of the programme.  Unfortunately, a lot of things were out of the Council’s control but she provided assurance that Officers would continue to drive the project forwards.

Priority: Housing

P67 – Objective 3 – Action b) Work with partners, infrastructure providers and developers to progress the delivery of key sites – A Member questioned why there was a happy face against the progress when the comments section stated that the JCS transport strategy (May 2017) had identified requirements for strategic allocations but funding had not been secured for the A38/A40 link road which was a key piece of infrastructure.

The Head of Development Services advised that this action was multi-faceted and covered several different sites. There had been positive discussions in respect of other sites which was the reason it was considered to be performing well and Officers continued to look at other opportunities for funding across the board.  The Member was of the view that the happy face was not appropriate given that the link road was a major piece of infrastructure which would affect three of the strategic allocations.  The Deputy Chief Executive took this point and indicated that the action could be split up and she undertook to ensure this was reflected in future reports.

P68 – Objective 4 – Action b) Deliver 150 affordable homes each year – Whilst it was commendable that 233 affordable homes had been delivered, a Member questioned whether the target had been set too low.

The Head of Community Services advised that the target that had been set was a realistic one based on what it was thought could be delivered.  Officers were reviewing the target to reflect what the Council could deliver with its partners.  The Chief Executive indicated that this was something which had also been picked up by the Executive Committee.  It was accepted that the target needed to be refined to split up the different housing types and tenures so that it was more meaningful for Members.

Priority: Customer Focused Services

P74 – Objective 1 – Action c) Review garden waste arrangements to improve the renewal and payment process – A Member noted that the new garden waste project had generated over £722,000 and she questioned how much it had cost to implement.

The Head of Community Services indicated that he did not have that information to hand but he would update Members following the meeting.

Key Performance Indicators for Priority: Customer Focused Services

P84 – KPI 29 – Percentage of waste recycled or composted – A Member noted that progress was being made with the construction of the ‘Energy from Waste’ plant at Javelin Park and he queried how this would affect the Council’s performance. 

Another Member indicated that supermarkets had made a commitment to reduce the amount of packaging used by 40% by 2020 and, although the percentage was less than the previous year, the amount of waste which could be recycled was also less so the fact the target for the year had been exceeded was very positive.

The Head of Community Services advised that there had been a reduction in recycling rates where ‘Energy from Waste’ plants had been set up in other parts of the country.  Nevertheless, the Council would continue to promote and encourage recycling.  He reminded Members that recycling was only one part of the waste hierarchy – the first option was to either not use or re-use; therefore, in an ideal situation there would be no waste to recycle or take to landfill.  It was noted that ‘Energy from Waste’ would reduce landfill to zero.

12.4           Turning to the financial information, the Head of Finance and Asset Management was pleased to report a final outturn position of £1.5M surplus on the general fund.  This could be attributed to a strong performance in treasury and commercial activities, additional business rates retention and substantial external grant funding being received.  A summary of performance was set out in the table at Paragraph 4.4 of the report.  Income was shown at £894,361 over the budgeted provision which was mainly due to external grant funding; the Council had received a number of new burdens grants from the government but had also attracted significant service specific grants, particularly in relation to the delivery of the requirements for infrastructure and the Joint Core Strategy.  The overall service total showed a surplus of £1,080,281 for the year.  Members were advised that treasury activity showed a surplus of £190,359, the main reason being the investment in the CCLA pooled property fund in May 2017 which was currently generating income returns of 4.67%.  Short-term borrowing rates had remained low and the Council had made savings as a result of maintaining all borrowing on a short term structure.  In addition, a further three commercial investment properties had been acquired in quarter three which was earlier than anticipated.  For the first time in four years, the Council was also able to report a positive position on the retained business rates scheme which showed a £636,515 surplus with additional income being generated through underlying growth; identification of renewable energy installations where business rates were retained locally; and, payment of additional grant from the government in respect of amendments to the business rate multiplier cap.  The table concluded with the budgeted transfer to reserves of £57,383 and the actual transfer totalling £1.5M which represented a budget variance of 2,611%.  Further information could be found at Appendix 1 to the report.

12.5           The summarised capital programme was set out at Appendix 3 to the report.  The level of capital expenditure incurred in 2017/18 totalled £15.93M with the bulk of this spent on the purchase of further investment properties and refurbishment of the Public Service Centre.  The Council had spent £15.93M on capital projects using £1.70M of capital reserves, £510,000 of capital grants, £90,000 of revenue contributions and £13.64M from borrowing.  The balance of capital reserves had reduced to £1.98M as at 31 March 2018.  The final element of the report related to earmarked reserves and a breakdown was shown at Appendix 4 to the report.  The increase in overall revenue reserves totalled £2.56M and was the result of a number of factors including the in-year surplus within the general fund and developer contributions, expenditure against contributions already received and expenditure on existing reserves of £1.01M.

12.6           A Member noted that savings had been made on transport across Council services and asked for an explanation as to how that had been achieved.  He also queried whether the Council was exploring the use of pool cars and the use of electric vehicles.  In response, the Head of Finance and Asset Management advised that the main reason for the reduction was that less business mileage was being incurred and fewer essential car user payments were being made.  Pool cars were on the agenda for the forthcoming year and electric vehicles could be part of that exercise.  Consideration would also be given to the provision of vehicle charging points for the Council’s assets at various locations across the borough during the second half of the year.

12.7           Having considered the information provided, it was

RESOLVED          That the performance management information for quarter 4 of 2017/18 be NOTED.

Supporting documents: