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 2017/18 be NOTED.

18.1           The report of the Chair of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee, circulated at Pages No. 15-60, asked Members to review and, if appropriate, take action on the observations of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee following its review of the 2017/18 quarter four performance management information.

18.2           Attention was drawn to the observations made by the Overview and Scrutiny Committee, attached at Appendix 1 to the report, to the Council Plan Performance Tracker, attached to the report at Appendix 2, and to the financial information circulated at Appendices 3-5.

18.3           The Chair of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee explained that, as part of the ongoing review of the effectiveness of Overview and Scrutiny, an external trainer had recently provided an overview of the national picture regarding scrutiny and the Chair had found it pleasing to note that the Council’s Overview and Scrutiny Committee demonstrated a lot of the traits she had mentioned; however, the one key area where the Council’s Overview and Scrutiny Committee’s effectiveness could be enhanced was the challenge it gave to the Executive Committee. He thanked those Members that had attended the session, as he felt it had been helpful for both Overview and Scrutiny and Executive Committee Members to be present, and indicated that Executive Committee Members may be asked to attend his Committee to present reports in future, just as he did at the Executive Committee. His Committee Members had also challenged him to be more robust when making his presentations on performance management to the Executive Committee and he had undertaken to meet that challenge.

18.4           In terms of the review of performance management information, the Overview and Scrutiny Committee had noted the information and key actions delivered which included: the excellent performance of the Council’s commercial property investments; the appointment of a Growth and Enterprise Manager and a Growth Hub Navigator in readiness for the introduction of the growth hub; the delivery of affordable homes which, at 233, had exceeded the target of 150; adoption of the Public Space Protection Order and the more proactive approach to enviro-crimes which had been seen; and the success of the garden waste ‘sticker’ project which had now sold 17,094 stickers and generated income of £769,000. The Committee had also recognised that some actions had not progressed as envisaged and had raised particular concern about the review of trade waste and the fact that delivery of the project had slipped for the third time from its original target of April 2017 – the Committee had felt that the positive approach to the garden waste project could be translated to the trade waste service so that it was commercially exploited to the fullest extent. During the recent review of Overview and Scrutiny it was generally accepted that the information reported to it was open and transparent but, in relation to trade waste, there had been references made to an Association for Public Service Excellence (APSE) report which Members were yet to have sight of. The Committee had also identified that the partnership working to bring Healings Mill back into use had slipped a number of times and, whilst it was accepted that this was out of the Council’s control to some extent, they had questioned whether the programme was documented and what the key milestones were as well as whether the milestones aligned to the dates within the performance tracker. In addition, the Committee had noted that one of its Members, who worked in the supermarket arena, had advised that supermarkets had made a commitment to reduce the amount of packaging being used by 40% by 2020 which could reduce the amount of waste being recycled; however, it was positive that the Council’s recycling rate had improved from the previous year especially when over half of Councils had seen a reduction in their recycling rates.

18.5           During the discussion which ensued, a Member indicated that she understood the Overview and Scrutiny Committee’s concerns about the Healings Mill project as the Council had been involved for quite a long time without actually being able to achieve a way forward. She was aware that the owners had refused an offer on the buildings opposite the Mill as they wanted to sell it as a package with the Mill buildings and she was concerned about the area being left to fall into disrepair as some buildings had previously received planning permission which was now expiring. The Member felt there should be something the Council could do to force the issue. In response, the Head of Development Services explained that there had been a lot of discussions with the owners of Healings Mill and the new Conservation Officer had been tasked with looking into what could be done. Some options lay within planning powers and some in areas such as ‘Tidy-Up Notices’. Throughout the discussions, the owners had been advised about the expiry of the planning permissions but nothing had been done so there was now a new conversation to be had on that matter. It was anticipated that the masterplan would help with the issues faced and consultation on that would be taking place during the summer. The Member understood that many of the issues were not within the Council’s control; however, she felt there needed to be more forceful discussions. She questioned whether there were any legal routes that could be taken to force the owners to do something about the fact the historic building was becoming more and more run down. In response, the Chief Executive explained that any controls the Council may have at its disposal would probably cost a significant amount of money and Homes England was unlikely to put any money into it. He felt that, given the circumstances and the fact that the Council had little influence over the sale, the target date for the project was unrealistic and it was that which needed to be reviewed so that Members did not have expectations that could not be met.

18.6           Another Member requested an update on the current situation regarding the letting of the Public Services Centre. In response, the Head of Finance and Asset Management explained that the room on the top floor, which had previously been set up as the Council Chamber, had now been occupied by Mole Valley Farmers on a five year lease. The remainder of the space was currently under offer and Heads of Terms were in the process of being agreed for occupation from September.

18.7           Referring to the possibility of selling the Council’s trade waste service, the Chair of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee questioned whether this would be possible. In response, a Member indicated that one of the problems with local authorities operating as a business in offering a trade waste service was that they had to compete with the private sector and that was an extremely competitive market. The Joint Waste Partnership was currently considering the possibility of making a joint trade waste scheme but this was in the early stages. The Head of Community Services explained that there were a number of issues with this approach which were set out in the APSE report commissioned by Ubico. There were concerns around sharing that report in full because it did not belong to the Council; however, he intended to take a summary of the document to the Overview and Scrutiny Committee for consideration. In terms of the timescale for discussions with neighbouring authorities regarding a joint authority’s trade waste scheme, the Head of Community Services indicated that this was dependent on a number of discussions with different organisations but he hoped to be able to conclude a way forward during the current financial year.

18.8           Accordingly, it was