Agenda item

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

37.1           The report of the Corporate Services Group Manager, circulated at Pages No. 20-73, attached performance management information for quarter 1 of 2015/16.  The Overview and Scrutiny Committee was asked to review and scrutinise performance information and, where appropriate, identify any issues to refer to the Executive Committee for clarification or further action to be taken.

37.2           The performance management report comprised the Council Plan Performance Tracker, the Key Performance Indicator (KPI) set, the Revenue Budget Summary Statement, the Capital Monitoring Statement and the Reserves Position Summary.  The majority of information within the Performance Tracker, attached at Appendix 1, reflected the progress of Council Plan actions as at the time of writing the report. Paragraph 2.3 of the report highlighted a number of achievements since the last update.  Members were informed that business transformation savings of £171,000 had been included within the 2015/16 budget and a total of 2016m² office space had been made available for rental. In terms of service reviews, the Customer Service review was now complete; the review of Development and Environmental Health had commenced and, following the success of the Revenues and Benefits review, the team had successfully been shortlisted for the prestigious Institute of Revenues Rating and Valuation (IRRV) award. Ongoing partnership work was taking place with Cotswold Tourism, which was now a standalone company, which was excellent news for the Borough. Development of projects such as the Heritage Walks and Interpretation was taking place with the Tewkesbury Town Centre Partnership and this was working well. The governance arrangements to support the £1.4million LEADER project were being formalised and a Tewkesbury Borough Local Action Group had been formed. The client monitoring framework for the Ubico contract had been implemented and a monitoring report was due to be submitted to the next meeting of the Committee. In terms of the Volunteer Litter Pickers Scheme, an additional 26 people had now joined which took the total to 180. The Repair and Renew Grant Scheme had closed at the end of June and a total of £572,000 had been awarded to residents with flood affected properties. A new Community Funding Officer had been appointed and she would be able to signpost communities to funding sources other than the Borough Council. In addition, the new leisure centre remained on target for completion by July 2016 and a new Tewkesbury Parkrun had been established which attracted over 100 weekly runners and 30 volunteers.

37.3           The Corporate Services Group Manager advised that the complex nature of the actions being delivered meant that some may not progress as smoothly or quickly as envisaged and those were set out in the table at Paragraph 2.3. Particular attention was drawn to the fact that a partner to rent the vacant top floor of the Council Offices building had not been confirmed; this meant that the target of £75,000 income in 2015/16 was unlikely to be achieved. The Internal Audit report on the handling and learning from complaints had not got the sense that the Council was learning from complaints received; with this in mind it was intended that a fundamental review of the complaints framework would be undertaken. In terms of the business grant scheme, no grants had been awarded in quarter 1 as the Scheme had been put on hold for a number of reasons and would now be reviewed by the Overview and Scrutiny Committee as part of its review of the Economic and Tourism Strategy. In terms of Key Performance Indicators, the Corporate Services Group Manager explained that it was early days for the data reported currently and a clearer picture would emerge at the end of quarter 2. However, Key Indicators of interest at this stage included KPI 5 – number of overall crime incidents – the 12 month rolling total confirmed an increase of 8.44% overall but it was anticipated that as the new operating model was embedded this would reduce; KPI 11 – average number of sick days – the outturn of 1.23 days was a significant improvement on the previous year and it was currently anticipated that the target would be met; KPI 15 and 16 – Average time to process benefit applications – processing times were at their best ever level and showed continued improvement from 2014/15, this confirmed that the improvement programme was really working and was becoming embedded into the service; and KPI 26 – Number of reported enviro-crimes – looked like they could be on the same level as reported in 2014/15.

37.4           During the discussion which ensued, the Chairman offered the Committee’s congratulations to the Revenues and Benefits Teams who had been shortlisted for an award. It was felt that this was an excellent achievement and a great recognition of the improvement work undertaken. In terms of the answering of telephone calls, a Member expressed the view that, whilst some departments were excellent at picking up calls for each other, others were not so good and this was frustrating for Members and the public. In response, the Corporate Services Manager explained that Customer Services now fell within his remit and he would be considering this issue. Everything that the Council did was about good customer service and if he was aware that service was slipping he would ensure good customer service was championed throughout the teams in the Council. It was his intention that standards for voicemail would be introduced so that people knew when staff would be available if they were not answering their telephone at a certain time. In respect of tourist attractions, a Member indicated that an initiative was underway in Down Hatherley Churchyard to restore the Gwinnett family tomb which dated from the 18^th Century. He felt that this could be a really good tourist attraction for the Borough and he wondered whether it was something that the Borough Council would contribute to. In response, the Economic and Community Development Manager explained that he would discuss this with the Member outside of the meeting. He felt sure there would be funding streams that could be accessed to help with the project. In response to a query regarding the LEADER funding, the Economic and Community Development Manager explained that the funding was for rural growth so could not be used in all areas of the Borough. It was about generating growth and creating new jobs in rural areas i.e. farm diversification by the creation of a farm shop which would create employment and encourage local producers. If there were any particular projects that Members were aware of they should advise the Programme Manager, Neil Batt, who would meet with the relevant people. Neil worked for both Tewkesbury Borough Council and the Forest of Dean District Council and he was meeting with people now so he was ready when the money came in from Defra.

37.5           In terms of the Council’s financial position as at the end of June, the Finance and Asset Management Group Manager referred to Page No. 24 – Table one, which showed the overall position. There was a surplus of £109,849 for this quarter which was mainly as a result of income from the Planning, Garden Waste and One Legal Services. It was hoped that this could be carried forward into the second quarter. Paragraph 4.3, and Appendix 3, showed the position for each Group Manager with notes against any significant variances. He explained that, although the Group Managers position appeared to be significantly underspent, the budget report also recognised the need to achieve savings from the base budget in terms of salaries and procurement savings. Those savings targets were currently held on the corporate budget codes on the ledger. No savings were recognised against those plans as they accumulated through the year within service groupings. The potential impact of appeals on business rates also needed to be taken into account. A spike in applications had been seen in March as a result of changes in Government Policy on backdating appeals. The impact of appeals was uncertain as it remained with the Valuation Office to process them; although an estimated impact of successful appeals had been allowed for. The first quarter position for business rates retention was in line with expected levels of income following the Virgin Media reassessments in 2014/15. A full year deficit of £110,000 was currently predicted. Paragraph 5, and Appendix 4, showed the capital position as at the end of quarter 1. This currently showed an overspend against the profiled budget of £182,672. Community grants were underspent due to slippages in approved schemes, however, monitoring by the Working Group highlighted that all schemes were continuing and budgets were expected to be spent. In addition, the overspend on housing and business grants was due to the fact that the grants had been awarded for flood relief but the Council had not yet recovered the money from central Government; this was due to be received in quarter 2. Paragraph 3.1, and Appendix 5, showed a summary of the current usage of available reserves. At present the reserves were beginning to be utilised and only showed the actual payments made. The information contained within the Appendix did not take account of reserves which had been committed but not yet paid. As at the end of the first quarter, £485,853 had been expended against the opening reserves of £10,567,814. Details of significant movements were contained within the notes on the Appendix.

37.6           During the brief discussion which ensued, a Member questioned what the planning obligation reserve was. In response, the Finance and Asset Management Group Manager advised that Section 106 money was funding which was received from developers. As a development progressed there were trigger points at which time funds were released and they were then held in the planning obligation reserve awaiting expenditure. In addition, the Deputy Chief Executive explained that the details of a Section 106 Agreement was negotiated with the developer based on the needs of a community and the mitigation of a development. Each negotiation was different, as were the triggers for funding. A Member queried whether it was correct that there had been £5million of Section 106 monies for development in Longford. In response, the Finance and Asset Management Group Manager indicated that he was unsure but would check and respond to the Member accordingly.

37.7           Having considered the information provided, it was

                  RESOLVED          That the performance management information for quarter 1 of                         2015/16 be NOTED.