Agenda item

Performance Report Quarter 1 2018/19

Meeting of Overview and Scrutiny, Tuesday, 4 September 2018 4:30 pm (Item 33.)

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

Minutes:

33.1 The report of the Head of Corporate Services, circulated at Pages No. 31-71, attached performance management information for the first quarter of 2018/19. 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.

33.2 Members were advised that this was the first quarterly monitoring report for 2018/19 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: Executive Committee approval of disposal of the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries (MAFF) site; two additional property investments; success of the garden waste project; completion of the Public Services Centre refurbishment; letting of the remaining office space on the top floor of the building; appointment of the Business Transformation Manager and Technical Planning Manager within Development Services; Council approval of the Community Services restructure; appointment of a development advisor for the Spring Gardens project; progress in respect of the implementation of the Customer Relationship Management (CRM) system; and delivery of 79 affordable homes. 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 details of these were set out at Paragraph 2.4 of the report. The Head of Corporate Services pointed out that some of these actions had now been reported several times and there was a need for a discussion by the Management Team to ensure they had realistic target dates and adequate resources for delivery. 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 16 indicators with targets, two had not been achieved as at the end of the first quarter. It was noted that three new KPIs had been included for 2018/19: the number of visitors entering the Growth Hub; percentage of Freedom of Information (FOI) requests answered on time; and percentage of formal complaints answered on time. It was pleasing to report that that 100% of ‘major’ planning applications had been determined within 13 weeks, or an alternative period agreed with the applicant, which exceeded both the target and last year’s outturn, and there had also been a reduction in the number of reported enviro-crimes compared to the previous year. A Member drew attention to Page No. 35, Paragraph 3.3, bullet point five of the report, in relation to KPI 21 – average number of days to process new benefit claims – which stated that the performance of 21 days was below the target of 15 days but should say ‘above’ the target. In respect of the reduction in the number of reported enviro-crimes, a Member indicated that this was largely due to the number of prosecutions and he felt that Officers’ hard work should be recognised in this regard.

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

Priority: Finance and Resources
P41 – Objective 3 – Action a) – Deliver the aims and objectives of the commercial property investment strategy – A Member noted that the comments stated that the Council’s property portfolio stood at £39m, producing a gross income of about £1.9m; however, the second bullet point on Page No. 33, Paragraph 2.3 of the report, stated that the annual gross income would be £2.4m. Members questioned how far the property investments had helped to reduce the budget deficit and what action was taken to minimise risks associated with investment properties.	The Finance Manager apologised for this error and indicated that she believed the correct amount was £2.4m but she undertook to provide a schedule of all properties and their gross income following the meeting. The Chief Executive explained that the deficit over the five year period of the Medium Term Financial Strategy remained at £1.8 - 2m and, whilst the net income of approximately £850,000 from the commercial property portfolio had made a huge difference, there were still some major issues to address as the budget programme moved forward in the autumn. Potential investments were considered by the Commercial Property Investment Board, which was a Member panel advised by Officers and the Council’s investment advisors. In order to maximise investment potential, it was important that the property portfolio was as broad as possible and covered a range of sectors. It was worth noting that the external auditors had found the Council’s investment portfolio, and the associated processes, to be sound. Members were advised that the risks associated with the portfolio were far outweighed by the income that was generated.
P42 – Objective 4 – Action b) Explore options for the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries (MAFF) site – A Member sought an update on plans for the site.	Members were informed that the Executive Committee had approved the disposal of the MAFF site for residential use. In order to achieve the best price, it was intended to sell the site with planning permission, if possible, and Officers were currently commissioning survey work to support that.
Priority: Promoting and Supporting Economic Growth
P46 – Objective 4 – Action b) Develop a programme with partners to progress Healings Mill and other key development opportunity sites to support the regeneration of Tewkesbury – A Member noted that the target date for this action had changed several times and she questioned whether any developers were interested in the Healings Mill site.	The Chief Executive explained that the main difficulty was that the Council did not own the site and therefore this action was largely outside of its control. Notwithstanding this, he recognised that the target date had changed significantly, and he agreed that more meaningful timescales were needed.
P46 – Objective 5 – Action a) Explore with partners – including the Battlefield Society – the potential to increase the heritage offer at the Battlefield site – A Member sought a progress update.	The Chief Executive advised that some progress had been made and it was intended to bring forward a project with the various partners. To date, Officers had met with the key landowners and stakeholders to discuss what might be possible and consideration was being given to an IT-based heritage project. The project had slipped as it had taken longer than anticipated to engage with the Battlefield Society and other partners. It was noted that the revised target date of December 2018 related to getting agreement on a way forward rather than the date the project would be completed in its entirety.
Key Performance Indicators for Priority: Economic Development
P48 – KPI 5 – Number of visitors to Tewkesbury Tourist Information Centre (TIC) – A Member was surprised to see that the number of visitors to the Tewkesbury TIC had decreased given the fantastic weather over the summer.	Members were reminded that the figures related to the first quarter of 2018/19 which covered the period April-June - before the extended period of hot and dry weather.
P48 – KPI 7 – Number of visitors entering the Growth Hub – A Member noted that this was a new indicator and questioned what comparisons would be used to establish whether performance was good or bad.	The Chief Executive explained that this KPI had been set by the Local Enterprise Partnership (LEP) as a condition of the capital that it had put into the Growth Hub and it was currently the only measure of performance available. The only other tier two Growth Hub in Gloucestershire was at the Royal Agricultural University in Cirencester, which had recently opened, and no other Growth Hub in the UK was located within a local authority premises therefore there was no established track record for comparison.

33.4 Turning to the financial information, the Finance Manager was pleased to report an £81,867 surplus against the profiled budget for quarter one. This was largely due to employee cost savings of £76,330, mainly within the Property and Development Services teams, and additional income of £19,940 mainly in relation to the garden waste service and grant income for the Benefits team which had not been budgeted for. Unfortunately, the savings on employees in Development Services had been offset by the reduction in planning income which had been a continuing trend over the last 12 months. There had also been an overspend against benefit claimant payments i.e. where housing benefit claimants had been overpaid which could occur when claimants failed to inform the Council of a change in circumstances. This would be monitored over the coming months to identify any trends and resources had been allocated to the recovery of overpaid housing benefit. In addition, the first quarter outturn position for the Ubico contract had forecast a full year deficit of £84,000. It was noted that business rates income, returns from the investment portfolio and treasury management activities were all positive. Appendix 3 to the report set out the capital budget position as at quarter one. This showed a small underspend because of the office refurbishment being slightly behind the budget profile. Members were advised that this work had been delayed and the overall costs had increased due to the discovery of asbestos. The final element of the report related to the current usage of available reserves and a breakdown was shown at Appendix 4 to the report.

33.5 A Member drew attention to the table at Page No. 36, Paragraph 4.2 of the report, which showed a budget variance of £76,330 in respect of employee cost savings whereas Paragraph 4.3 reported this as £79,330. The Finance Manager confirmed that the figure in the table was correct, i.e. £76,330, and she apologised for the typographical error within the main body of the report. Another Member understood that there was a 1% margin of error within benefits due to overpayments and he questioned why this was not budgeted for. The Finance Manager believed that a 1% margin had been included in the budget; she explained that, if an overpayment was due to claimant error, the Council was able to recover 40% from the government. Tewkesbury Borough Council had a good track record of this and, given that it was only the first quarter, she was optimistic that the situation would improve. In response to a query regarding the asbestos, the Finance Manager confirmed that it had been found beneath the flagstones under the entrance to reception but it had not been as significant as first thought and had all been successfully removed.

33.6 Having considered the information provided, it was

RESOLVED That the performance management information for quarter one of 2018/19 be NOTED.

Supporting documents: