Accessibility settings

In order to remember your preferences as you navigate through the site, a cookie will be set.

Color preference

Text size

Agenda item

Performance Report - Quarter 3 2018/19

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

Minutes:

92.1          The report of the Head of Corporate Services, circulated at Pages No. 35-79, attached performance management information for the third 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.

92.2          Members were advised that this was the third 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: approval of the Medium Term Financial Strategy at Council in January; approval of the Commercial Strategy by the Executive Committee in November; official launch of the Growth Hub which had received national recognition with features in publications such as the Municipal Journal; refurbishment of the Lower Lode Depot car park; progression of the pool car project with a ‘go live’ date of 26 March 2019; income from garden waste renewals reaching £250,000 in its first week and rising to £500,000 currently; delivery of 262 affordable homes in 2018/19 against a target of 200; and, consultation on the Ashchurch Masterplan, the draft Supplementary Planning Document for Tewkesbury Town and the Tewkesbury Borough Plan.  As was often the case, 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.  It was particularly noted that the action around exploring options for the regeneration of Spring Gardens had only been delayed by one month due to reporting timeframes and although the action to explore the potential to increase the heritage offer at the Battlefield site had slipped on four occasions, it was hoped that it now had feasible implementation dates and would not need to be flagged to the Committee again.

92.3          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 17 indicators with targets, three had not been achieved as at the end of the third quarter.  It was particularly noted that the number of visitors to the Growth Hub (KPI 7) was 369 during the first quarter of opening and, in terms of planning performance (KPIs 12 and 13), the targets for the 2017/18 outturns had been exceeded.  The Head of Corporate Services also pointed out that a further 36 community groups had been assisted with funding advice (KPI 19) resulting in over £587,000 of external grants being raised.

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

Priority: Finance and Resources

P44 – Objective 1 – Action a) Deliver the Council’s transformation programme to deliver a balanced budget – A Member welcomed the roll-out of the car pool pilot but questioned what the Council was doing in terms of the provision of charging points, given that the majority of the vehicles would be electric – he had been informed that the closest points were currently in Gloucester and Strensham.

The Head of Finance and Asset Management advised that it was intended to install charging points at the Public Services Centre which would be available for public use, as well as by staff.  A communication plan for this would be produced in the new financial year once it had been properly scoped.  In response to a query as to when the charging points might be available, he advised that this was likely to be during the second quarter of 2019/20.

Priority: Promoting and Supporting Economic Growth

P51 – Objective 5 – Action a) Explore with partners – including the Battlefield Society – the potential to increase the heritage offer at the Battlefield site – A Member questioned whether this should be removed from the performance tracker, given that it was reliant on third parties, and if it would be more appropriate for the Committee to receive separate update reports as it progressed.

The Head of Development Services confirmed that a meeting had been held with the Battlefield Society the previous day to discuss the project.  The Council had a more facilitative role as many of the issues affecting the site, and the timeframe for delivery, were outside of its control.  Notwithstanding this, it was beneficial for the project to be included within the performance tracker in order to demonstrate the Council’s commitment to the other parties and, whilst progress could not be guaranteed, it was important to have a project plan.

P52 – Objective 5 – Action b) Develop a programme to work with existing tourism attractions within the borough to promote historic heritage – A Member was disappointed that little was being done to promote Gwinnett’s Tomb as an important heritage and tourist attraction.

The Head of Development Services advised that Officers were working with Cotswold Tourism and other key agencies on how best to promote the tourism offering within the borough and she assured Members that all attractions were being discussed in that context, including Gwinnett’s Tomb.  She undertook to ensure Members were updated on the details as this progressed.

P52 – Objective 5 – Action c) Review the tourism resources to maximise the tourist provisions in the borough – A Member sought an update on the delivery of the Tewkesbury Tourist Information Centre (TIC).

The Head of Development Services explained that this was part of the overall strategy for tourism which would be presented to Members shortly.  There had been various conversations in relation to the TIC and the opportunity for a service agreement with Tewkesbury Abbey; however, there were issues around the use of the Hat Shop building, where the TIC was currently situated, and how this fitted with the conditions of the grant, so Officers had been working to ensure compliance.

Priority: Growing and Supporting Communities

P56 – Objective 1 – Action e) With partners, explore options for the provision of modular and innovative housing to meet housing needs – A Member considered it unfair to give this action a sad face given that two to three modular housing projects were being progressed.

The Head of Community Services thanked the Member for this comment and agreed that a straight face would be a more accurate assessment.

P58 – Objective 3 - Action c) Produce a business case for improvements to the A40 at Longford, including improvements to Longford roundabout – A Member queried how the plans for Longford roundabout were progressing.

The Head of Development Services confirmed that this was progressing well; consultation had taken place at the end of 2018 and a business case was being worked up, so it was anticipated the target date would be achieved.

Key Performance Indicators for Customer Focused Services

P70 – KPI 18 – Number of reported enviro-crimes – A Member indicated that Radio Gloucestershire had recently reported on the amount of enviro-crime, particularly fly-tipping, around the county and he had been pleased to note that Tewkesbury Borough Council was the only authority which had not been mentioned.

The Head of Community Services advised that the Environmental Health team had been working hard to address fly-tipping and to publicise any prosecutions; however, these reports were not always picked up by the press so he welcomed this comment.

P71 – KPI 20 – Benefits Caseload and KPI 21 - Average number of days to process new benefit claims – A Member noted that the housing benefit caseload continued to fall following the roll-out of Universal Credit with large scale movement unlikely to begin until November 2020; however, in terms of processing new benefits claims, the comments stated that the team continued to face an increasing workload.  He expected the workload to continue to increase given the amount of additional affordable housing and new development that would be coming forward in the borough via the Joint Core Strategy and questioned whether the team could be supported.

The Head of Corporate Services explained that, whilst caseloads had fallen, this was not to the extent that had been predicted and the council tax reduction scheme element meant that change of circumstances still had to be processed.  He reassured Members that he was monitoring performance and would raise any potential resourcing issues with Management Team.

P73 – KPI 25 – Number of anti-social behaviour incidents – A Member was shocked that the number of incidents had reduced by 14.78% given that anti-social behaviour was generally increasing across the county.  He questioned whether this was because incidents were not being reported and if there was anything that could be done to encourage reporting.

The Head of Community Services explained that it was not unusual to see a dip in the number of anti-social behaviour incidents during the winter but he undertook to investigate this following the meeting.  He confirmed that the Tewkesbury Borough Community Safety Partnership had been reconvened and Safer Gloucestershire had set its priorities which would be launched in the summer and would include considering how anti-social behaviour could be better recorded.

P73 – KPI 27 – Average number of sick days per full time equivalent – A Member noted from the figures that there had been a slight decrease in quarter three but that the target was unlikely to be achieved for the year and questioned if she had understood this correctly.

The Head of Corporate Services confirmed that was the case – although several members of staff who had been on long-term sick leave had returned to work during the quarter, and more positive figures were expected for quarter four, it would still be above target.

P74 – KPI 30 – Food establishment hygiene ratings – A Member questioned whether food establishments with a hygiene rating of three or below were re-visited and whether there was any correlation between the size of the establishment and the score.

The Head of Community Services clarified that there was a set period within which establishments were re-checked depending on the level of risk.  He confirmed that the programme of food inspections was being achieved each year and the number of lower scores were reducing.  Whilst some larger companies had better strategies in place for food hygiene, there was generally no correlation between the size of establishment and the score.

92.5           Turning to the financial information, the Head of Finance and Asset Management was pleased to report a £664,478 surplus against the budgeted profile as at the end of quarter three.  The table at Page No. 40, Paragraph 4.2 of the report showed how that surplus had been generated.  It was noted that the majority of savings - £337,960 - related to employee costs which were mainly through staff vacancies and time lags between replacing individuals etc.  Income was also doing well with a surplus of £127,444 from Community Services in relation to the garden waste scheme.  Treasury activities too had been positive and investment properties had generated a healthy surplus as a result of securing additional properties sooner than anticipated.  In addition, the retained business rates scheme was also progressing very well this year resulting in a net surplus of almost £300,000 in relation to the Council’s position within the 50% standalone scheme.  It was noted that the Council was also involved in the countywide 100% pilot and reports at quarter three suggested that, as an individual authority, Tewkesbury Borough Council could be in line for a windfall of approximately £800,000. 

92.6           In terms of deficits, the most significant overspend was in relation to the Ubico contract; Ubico had reported a projected overspend of £230,887 as at the end of quarter three which was an increase of £89,265 from quarter two.  There were a number of reasons for the overspend with the two main ones being: employee costs – mostly in relation to using agency staff to cover an increased number of long-term sickness absences; and transport costs – the majority of which related to the maintenance of the recycling and grounds maintenance equipment and vehicles, increased fuel costs and hire charges, and an overspend on tyres and other supplies.  The overspend was significant and Officers had been working closely with colleagues at Ubico to understand the reasons for the deficit, and to make improvements to financial reporting and management to ensure the Council was aware of the issues at the time, rather than at the end of the quarterly reporting.  Planning meetings were taking place every three weeks which were attended by the Deputy Chief Executive, the Head of Community Services, the Head of Finance and Asset Management and the Managing Director of Ubico.  Members were advised that Ubico had recently appointed a new Financial Controller and, having met with them on several occasions, the Finance Team was impressed with what they were doing and their vision for the future.  Whilst there were a number of practical issues to be resolved, the Head of Finance and Asset Management was confident they could be addressed and that the accounting practices would be checked to ensure they were correct.  More detail about the surplus and the overspend could be found in the budget report, attached at Appendix 2 to the report, which set out the variances for each Head of Service.  Appendix 3 to the report set out the capital budget position and the usage of available reserves was set out at Appendix 4.

92.7           During the debate which ensued regarding the Ubico overspend, a Member raised particular concern about the overspend of £59,000 in relation to tyres and questioned whether this was due to operator error and, if so, what was being done to address it.  The Head of Community Services recognised this was a significant amount and advised that a detailed analysis was being undertaken to establish how that figure had been arrived at.  Members were right to be concerned but it was important for Officers to understand the reasons for the overspend – it could be that the tyres had not been budgeted for correctly – and he provided assurance that robust questions were being asked of Ubico.  A Member felt that budgeting seemed to be a particular problem and she found the increase in the deficit between quarter two and three to be completely unacceptable.  The Head of Finance and Asset Management shared this view and confirmed that it had been raised with Ubico.  The financial forecasting had not been to an acceptable standard, but this was something he hoped would be resolved with the introduction of the new Financial Controller.  He recognised there was a lot of work to be done but he hoped this would give Members some assurance.  A Member queried whether the Council was liable for the whole deficit and was advised that it paid the costs incurred for the year so it would be required to pay the whole amount, provided that the costs had been correctly allocated which was being thoroughly checked.  A Member indicated that, when Members of the Committee had visited the depot in 2018 they had witnessed a refuse vehicle getting a puncture when it had driven across the yard to exit the depot.  The Head of Community Services indicated that the condition of the depot and operator error may both be contributing factors but reiterated the need to wait for the detailed analysis rather than jumping to conclusions.

92.8           A Member questioned whether any justification was provided for overspends.  The Head of Community Services advised that Ubico did give an assumption of overspends and underspends but it was inadequate and the Finance team was not getting the answers needed so this would be taken up with the Managing Director of Ubico.  The Head of Finance and Asset Management explained that this type of service always attracted overspends, for example, through use of agency staff to cover sickness absence, but these were generally offset through surpluses in other parts of the contract.  In this instance, there were question marks over a number of areas which Officers were working to get to the bottom of and that information would be brought back to Members in due course.  In response to a Member comment regarding the amount of Officer time being invested in Ubico by the Council, the Head of Finance and Asset Management confirmed that the Council was responsible for managing the Ubico contract; he did not want to be in a position where he had to report such a significant deficit to Members, therefore, it was necessary to put in time and effort to make improvements and he was happy to do so provided that this was reflected by Ubico.  A Member questioned whether it would be appropriate to carry out an audit of Ubico and was advised that Ubico had its own audit team which worked closely with the Council’s audit teams.  The Council had access to the Ubico audit plan for the current and forthcoming year so if there were any gaps, or if further assistance was needed, it was possible to use the Council’s audit teams.  In response to a query as to whether it was possible to compare the figures with partner authorities, the Head of Finance and Asset Management confirmed that he had access to the high-level figures and a number of other authorities were also in deficit with Ubico for various reasons.  The Chief Executive assured Members that Officers were taking a robust approach with Ubico.  Whilst there had been concerns about service issues previously, this was the first time there had been a problem of this level with the Ubico contract framework and, although some of the overspend was understandable, the deficit for the quarter was significant and the information being provided had been very limited.  It was in the Council’s interest to understand the reasons for the deficit and to work with Ubico to ensure it had proper controls in place. 

92.9           With regard to the revenue budget at Appendix 2 to the report, a Member drew attention to note seven which stated that the quarter one report had shown that the Housing Benefit team had processed a higher than predicted level of overpayments but this had not continued over quarters two and three and therefore the impact on the budget had been reduced by £32,000.  He felt a reduction of that level – from £59,000 to £32,000 – was superb and should be celebrated.  With regard to the Finance and Asset Management service budget, a Member noted that income from car parking and permits was higher than budgeted and he indicated that there was an expectation from the public that some money would be re-invested in maintaining the car parks and ensuring they were safe and secure.  The Head of Finance and Asset Management confirmed that the car parking policy was due for review in 2019/20 so that could be picked up at that time.

92.10         It was

RESOLVED          That the performance management report for quarter three of 2018/19 be NOTED.

Supporting documents: