Agenda item

To receive and respond to the findings of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee‘s review of the Council Plan Performance Tracker, Local Performance Indicators and Financial Summary.

That the Overview and Scrutiny Committee’s comments on the Performance Management Report for Quarter Four of 2014/15 be NOTED.  

17.1           The report of the Chairman of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee, circulated at Pages No. 12-70, asked Members to review and, if appropriate, take action against the observations of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee following its review of the 2014/15 quarter four performance management information.

17.2           The Chairman of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee explained that this had been the first meeting of the new Committee and Members had asked a lot of questions which he felt was good news. In terms of the delivery of the Council Plan actions, the good progress which had been identified within the report had been noted. The specific questions that had arisen at the meeting had been in relation to the second floor accommodation in the Council Offices building and the plans, costs and loss of income thereof; the live date for the property search database; more information about the LEADER funding; the arrangements for the implementation of the Community Infrastructure Levy; fly-tipping and dog fouling; the value for money of the Anti-Social Behaviour Youth Diversion Worker; the levels of sickness absence; and planning performance and processing times. In terms of the financial summary information, Members had discussed the business rates revaluation in which it was agreed Members were well versed. Referring to the LEADER funding, the Chairman of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee explained that Members had been encouraged to contact the Programme Manager to advise of any businesses that might benefit from the funding and, whilst it had not been raised at the meeting, the Chairman felt that, given the value of the funding, a presentation should be made to the Overview and Scrutiny Committee in six months’ time so that Members could understand how the fund was progressing. There was some concern expressed about the Community Infrastructure Levy and whether or not Neighbourhood Plans were still relevant; particularly given the amount of work that some areas had already put into their Plans. In terms of dog fouling and flytipping, the Committee had raised genuine concerns about the level of enviro-crimes and had been advised that Environmental Health had recently gone through a structure review during which it had been necessary to recruit to some posts; the service would soon be fully staffed which would allow more community work to be undertaken. Surveillance cameras had recently been purchased, Brockworth Parish Council had bought glow in the dark signs and posters had been used to good effect in Shurdington and would also be used at The Vineyards in Tewkesbury.  Lastly, in respect of planning performance, Members had been informed of the forthcoming service review which would follow a similar process as the recent review of the Revenues and Benefits Service which had proven to be very successful. Planning performance was currently improving against a backdrop of an increase in applications which was pleasing. At the Overview and Scrutiny Committee, the Vice-Chairman of the Planning Committee had reiterated that there were a number of large and complex applications being received and he hoped the new scheme of delegation may help reduce overall processing times.

17.3           Referring to the Joint Waste Committee’s discussions about the procurement of cameras, a Member questioned whether the cameras would be covert or overt. In response, he was advised that they would be overt and therefore not subject to the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (RIPA). Referring to the use of posters in Shurdington to discourage dog fouling, a Member advised that in Churchdown Parish they had discovered a cheap and effective way of stopping dog fouling which used a stencil saying ‘bag it and bin it’ with a picture of a dog in the middle; this was used to spray the pavement in problem areas. The scheme had been monitored and seemed to be effective. The Deputy Chief Executive indicated that Officers welcomed the sharing of any good practice across the Borough and she undertook to discuss the approach taken in Churchdown with the Member. In respect of flytipping, a Member advised that this was a real problem in the Highnam/Minsterworth area. The last time he had reported it he had seen a swift response and he knew that an address had been found amongst the rubbish which had been followed up; however, he had never been advised of the final outcome which he felt was a shame since he had initially reported it. The Deputy Chief Executive undertook to follow this up and ask that the Member be advised of the outcome of the incident. A Member expressed the view that fly-tipping was a blight and Tewkesbury Borough Council was certainly not the only one that suffered. He explained that, at the Joint Waste Committee, Members delivered reports on what was being done in their areas and the Forest of Dean District Council’s reports were usually quite heartening. It paid Herefordshire County Council to prosecute fly-tippers and this seemed to work well; although it did need a person dedicated to deal with it. The Joint Waste Committee intended to look at this for the whole of Gloucestershire and consider whether it would be a cost effective way forward. The Chairman of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee felt that Members would welcome such a possibility; although he understood there would need to be a cost/benefits balance. The Deputy Chief Executive agreed that pooling resources across the County may be a good way forward to really have an effect on enviro-crimes and she felt it was helpful that this was being looked at by the Joint Waste Committee. A Member questioned whether there would be any mileage in not charging builders etc. for disposing of their waste for a trial period to see if this helped the situation. The Lead Member indicated that this could be investigated by the Joint Waste Committee.

17.4           Referring to Page No 37, a Member questioned why the Council did not have tougher enforcement on dog fouling. She indicated that previously the Council had chosen not to be involved in the ‘Clean Towns Initiative’ and she felt that this had been a mistake. She noted that the Enviro-Crimes Working Group had decided that Parish Councils should make a quarterly report on dog fouling to provide to the Borough Council; however, this was not practical as residents often did not report the problem and therefore the Parish Council was not aware of the extent of the issues. In response, the Deputy Chief Executive indicated that the Borough Council was using Fixed Penalty Notices for dog fouling wherever possible but unfortunately residents did not report the issues to the Borough Council either. There were a number of ideas being considered and it was felt that the ‘Paws on Patrol’ Scheme would be helpful. With regard to Parish Councils, she advised that it was the identification of ‘hot spots’ which the Borough Council required. This would allow resources to be targeted in problem areas; it was not the intention that the Parish Councils would have a complete data capture across the whole area. Members generally understood that catching people letting their dogs foul without picking it up was the real issue and that evidence was needed before any prosecutions could take place. Another Member advised that, in her area, the problem was getting worse rather than better and her Parish had looked at the possibility of partnering with other Parishes to jointly procure a Dog Warden in the hope that this would help. In response, the Deputy Chief Executive explained that the Overview and Scrutiny Committee had undertaken a review of Enviro-Crimes and there would be a report shortly on the actions undertaken since that review. She felt that it was still quite early after the review to have experienced huge changes but work on this was moving forward. The problem with a Dog Warden was that they still had to catch people that were letting their dogs foul without picking it up and this remained an issue with or without a Dog Warden in place. There had been one successful outcome in Northway Parish whereby someone who was known not to pick up after their dog had been sent a letter to encourage them to do so and this seemed to have worked. Members were advised that Tewkesbury Borough Council had also used this approach in the past but, again, the perpetrators had to be identified before this could be successful. A Member suggested that there had been a law whereby dog fouling was an offence in areas where the speed limit was 40mph or above and he felt that this would have a major effect on rural areas; the Borough Solicitor advised that she was not aware of that law but undertook to investigate. A Member suggested that residents could be encouraged to take photos on their mobile phones of people that allowed their dogs to foul and did not pick it up. In response, the Deputy Chief Executive advised that, whilst it was increasingly common for people to use technology to report things, and one of the strands of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee’s review had been communication, identifying people from pictures would probably be quite difficult. She felt that the main deterrent would be to catch a few people and then use that as part of a publicity campaign to show that the Council was tough on enviro-crimes. There was also a need to create a different culture so that people understood that it was not acceptable not to pick up after their dogs or to fly-tip etc.

17.5           In reference to Page No. 22, a Member questioned whether the explanation of the difference between high, medium and low risk in terms of food establishments which were broadly compliant with food hygiene regulations had been circulated to Members following the meeting and, if so, whether that information could be circulated to all Members rather than just to Overview and Scrutiny Committee Members. The Deputy Chief Executive undertook to action this request. The Member also noted that there were many establishments which she visited that did not display their one to five rating and she questioned whether the Council could say that the certificate had to be visible to the public. In response, the Deputy Chief Executive advised that establishments were not legally required to display their certificates but it certainly was best practice to do so. She further advised that there was to be a review of the Environmental Health and Planning services and, as part of that process, Officers would be looking to understand the impact of the services on customers etc. She felt that this could be considered as part of that work and maybe the ratings from the Council could be put into the public domain somehow rather than just relying on the individual establishments to show their certificates. The Chief Executive indicated that he would ensure a Member Update was circulated which explained how the food hygiene rating system worked. A Member suggested that food establishments could be encouraged to ‘wear their badge with pride’ in respect of food hygiene ratings as this would lift their clientele which would be helpful to their business. 

17.6           A Member drew attention to Page No. 26, Paragraph b) Improve complaints handling, including learning from complaints received to improve service delivery, and expressed the view that the Council must learn from any complaints received as this was the only way it would improve in those areas where there was an issue. In response, the Deputy Chief Executive advised that an internal audit had been undertaken which had identified that there were significant learning points which were not being addressed. Officers were working to rectify those issues.

17.7           The Overview and Scrutiny Committee Chairman indicated that he would take the Executive Committee’s comments on fly-tipping and dog fouling back to his Committee for discussion. The Chief Executive also reminded Members that the Overview and Scrutiny Committee would soon be considering an update on the review of enviro-crimes which he felt would offer an opportunity to discuss what was working/not working following that review. He felt there may be opportunities for improved partnership working with Parishes and other Districts and he was of the view that conversations at the Joint Waste Committee meetings could be of great help in this area.

17.8           Having considered the information received, it was