Agenda item

Performance Management - Quarter 4 and Full Year 2018/19

Meeting of Overview and Scrutiny, Tuesday, 18 June 2019 4:30 pm (Item 12.)

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

Minutes:

12.1 The report of the Head of Corporate Services, circulated at Pages No. 57-109, attached performance management information for quarter four 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.

12.2 Members were advised that this was the fourth 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 the strong performance of garden waste renewals with over 17,000 stickers sold, generating income of £820,000; progression of the Spring Gardens project in accordance with key milestones with a report due to be taken to the Executive Committee in July; input from Overview and Scrutiny Committee in the development and approval of a new Workforce Development Strategy; a Place Approach Member seminar held in the final quarter of the year which had resulted in it being tailored to what worked most effectively in each of the three areas; ‘making’ of the Down Hatherley, Norton and Twigworth Neighbourhood Development Plan at Council on 28 May resulting in a total of six ‘made’ Neighbourhood Development Plans across the borough; and the successful bid for Garden Town status for the Ashchurch area. 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 the details of these were set out at Paragraph 2.4 of the report. 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, nine had been achieved, two were on par with the target and six had not been achieved as at the end of quarter four. Key areas of interest were included at Paragraph 3.3 of the report.

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


Priority: Finance and Resources
P70 – Objective 3 – Action b) Undertake a review of the discretionary trade waste service to ensure it is operating on a viable commercial level – A Member noted that the commentary for this action stated that this included an action plan for increased marketing of the service and he questioned if this was necessary at this stage given that the service was under review.	The Head of Community Services explained that the Council had a legal duty to deal with trade waste. The service was currently not far from a break-even point and the review had demonstrated that the customer base could be increased quite easily; as such, it was important that the service was in as strong a position as possible should Members resolve to retain it in-house.
Priority: Promoting and Supporting Economic Growth
P72 – Objective 1 – Action c) Conduct a retail study in partnership with Cheltenham Borough Council and Gloucester City Council – A Member noted that a dedicated consultant had been employed to undertake the study but raised concern that Tewkesbury Borough was very different to Cheltenham Borough and Gloucester City. She also questioned whether the consultant would be able to deliver the study on time.	The Head of Development Services explained that it was important to keep a relatively similar methodology as it would be used to inform the Joint Core Strategy policy. She agreed that Tewkesbury Borough was a very different area, with a different customer base, and she provided assurance that the methodology was sophisticated enough to recognise this. She did not believe there would be an issue with the timeframe, certainly in relation to formation of the policy which was the purpose of the work.
P75 – 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 questioned who owned Healings Mill.	The Head of Development Services confirmed that Healings Mill was owned privately by a subsidiary company of the St Francis Group.
P77 – Objective 5 – Action c) Review the tourism resources to maximise the tourist provisions in the borough – A Member noted that this had been given a revised target date of October 2019 and he questioned whether resources had been reviewed in order to achieve the new date.	The Head of Development Services advised that there were many issues which were changing the face of tourism locally and nationally and consideration was being given to what other authorities were doing in terms of digitalisation, for example, installing interactive screens - similar to those used in shopping centres - at tourist locations and other hotspots across the borough. She hoped to be in a position to update Members on the Old Hat Shop shortly and indicated that discussions were taking place with Winchcombe Town Trust regarding the Tourist Information Centre following its successful bid for LEADER funding to develop a new heritage centre. Whilst the October target date was achievable in terms of being able to present the Council’s position, it was reliant on external factors in terms of how far things had progressed.
Key Performance Indicators for Priority: Economic Development
P77 – KPI 1 – Employment rates 16-64 year olds.	A Member congratulated Officers on the outturn of 84.7% which was significantly higher than both the 2017/18 outturn of 74.3% and the national rate of 75% and a fantastic achievement.
P78 - KPI 5 - Number of visits to Tewkesbury Tourist Information Centre (TIC) and KPI 6 - Number of visits to Winchcombe Tourist Information Centre (TIC) – A Member noted that the figures were slightly down and he sought a view on the future of the TICs, particularly given the increasing reliance on electronic methods of communication.	The Head of Development Services advised that one of the key pieces of work for the forthcoming year was around a strategic approach to tourism and keeping up with the latest technology and customer demand. She pointed out that the TICs were not just about information but also acted as a welcome point in each town.
Priority: Growing and Supporting Communities
P80 – Objective 1 – Action d) Develop housing growth plans associated with the Junction 9 masterplan – A Member questioned whether improvements to Junction 9 and the surrounding area would open it up to speculative development and whether that was a legitimate concern.	The Head of Development Services explained that speculative development was always a concern which was why the preparation of the Tewkesbury Borough Plan and the review of the Joint Core Strategy were so important. Although planning applications may come forward, they would need to be considered on their own planning merits and meet the relevant transport assessments etc. In response to a query as to whether Members could be updated on any speculative planning applications coming forward on a weekly or monthly basis, the Head of Development Services explained that all Members could sign-up to receive notifications about planning applications in their Ward - or across the borough as a whole should they wish - and she would be happy to go through this with the Member outside of the meeting.
P82 – Objective 3 – Action a) Monitor annually the delivery of homes within the borough – A Member questioned whether this figure had been rolled-over from 2017/18 given that there was often a time lag between planning permission being granted and homes being built.	Confirmation was provided that the total of 945 new homes represented homes that had been delivered in the borough between 1 April 2018 and 31 March 2019.
P82 – Objective 3 – Action c) Produce a business case for improvements to the A40 at Longford, including improvements to Longford roundabout – A Member questioned how the local authority was able to deliver the link.	The Head of Development Services indicated that some Members would be aware that the Council had submitted a funding bid for this infrastructure at the same time as the bid for the bridge at Ashchurch but it had been unsuccessful. The Council was not able to deliver the A40 link itself due to the cost, therefore it was looking for other funding opportunities and had been discussed in the conversations around the improvements to Junction 10 but nothing concrete had been agreed. At this stage, she could only reassure Members that Officers were looking into it and would take any opportunities that came forward.
P83 – Objective 4 – Action b) Achieve the Council’s affordable homes target by working with local housing providers – A Member congratulated Officers on delivering 277 new affordable homes and questioned whether the target – currently set at 200 – should be increased.	The Head of Community Services confirmed that the target would be reviewed. In response to a query as to where the target had come from, he indicated that he believed it was a stretch target, although it had been set before he had joined the authority. The new target would be informed by the housing needs assessments and it was noted that the rural assessments were being carried out currently; the Council’s Housing Strategy was due to end in 2020 so now was the right time to do this work and set a new target. In response to a query as to whether the strategy review could be brought forward to align with the Joint Core Strategy and Tewkesbury Borough Plan, the Head of Community Services indicated that it had been set as a five-year strategy but it was something he would look at.
P84 – Objective 4 – Action c) Work in partnership to deliver the Council’s Housing and Homeless Strategy – A Member asked for up-to-date figures on rough sleepers and questioned how many had migrated from Cheltenham or Gloucester; he also queried whether any mental health checks were carried out.	The Head of Community Services advised that a rough sleeper count was carried out annually on a national basis. Tewkesbury Borough had extremely low numbers of rough sleepers with only one recorded in the previous year. He gave assurance that Officers provided all of the support they could and worked very closely with partners to give financial and medical advice; however, the Council tended to focus more on prevention of homelessness and people at risk. Unfortunately, there was no information available as to whether rough sleepers were transient, and he pointed out that it was not unusual to find that some rough sleepers actually did have a place to stay. In response to a query as to whether the Council was represented on the board at Bromford Housing Association, as it had been previously on the Severn Vale Housing Society board, the Chief Executive advised that the whole system had effectively changed and was now regulated by Homes England; as such, there was no automatic place on boards following stock transfer so the Council was not represented and was not permitted to have any such representation.
Key Performance Indicators for Priority: Growing and Supporting Communities
P87 – KPI 12– Percentage of ‘major’ applications determined within 13 weeks or alternative period agreed with the applicant – and KPI 14 – Percentage of ‘other’ applications determined within eight weeks or alternative period agreed with the applicant – A Member noted that, whilst performance in relation to KPI 12 had improved, performance in respect of KPI 14 had deteriorated and he questioned whether improving one had a negative impact on the other.	The Head of Development Services provided assurance that this was not the case. She clarified that ‘major’ applications were for 10 dwellings or more, ‘minor’ applications were for nine dwellings or fewer and ‘other’ applications covered householder applications, certificate of lawfulness applications, conditional discharge applications etc. Major applications were clearly a focus for the Planning department and required significant Officer resources; notwithstanding this, other applications were wide-ranging and could also generate a lot of work. She explained that the team was currently trialling a new process for certificate of lawfulness applications - some authorities were able to turn around those applications within 14 days as they did not require as much consultation as other application types. With this in mind, she hoped to see an improvement in respect of ‘other’ applications by the end of the first quarter of 2019/20.
Priority: Customer Focused Services
P92 – Objective 3 – Action b) Introduce the option for paperless billing for council tax and business rates – A Member questioned whether there was a resource issue within IT services which needed to be addressed in order for the project to be delivered.	The Head of Corporate Services advised that an IT Strategy was currently being developed and there was money available to improve the infrastructure. Notwithstanding this, he clarified that the issues with the paperless billing project were not IT-related.
Key Performance Indicators for Priority: Customer Focused Services
P95 – KPI 19 – Community groups assisted with funding advice – A Member felt that this was fantastic work and asked whether it was possible to have a list of the groups which had been supported and their objectives and outcomes.	The Head of Development Services undertook to provide a list to Members and confirmed that £2M of community grants had been received over the last two years.
P98 – KPI 28 – Percentage of waste recycled or composted – A Member questioned why the outturn had reduced.	The Head of Community Services indicated that Page No. 61 of the report incorrectly stated that 52.6% of waste had been recycled and composted during 2018/19 when in fact that was the quarter four outturn; the full year outturn was 54.72% which was on a par with 2017/18 (54.55%) and above the 52% target. A Member questioned how Tewkesbury Borough Council compared to other local authorities and what the target was for the current year. In response, the Head of Community Services advised that it was in the top quartile and he undertook to provide the 2019/20 target following the meeting. The Member also asked if the target was increased year on year and was advised that it was a countywide target set with the Gloucestershire Joint Waste Committee and it was generally increased. A Member understood that Stroud District Council had an exceptionally high success rate in terms of percentage of waste recycled or composted and he questioned what that authority did differently. The Head of Community Services expressed the view that this was likely to be down to social demographics and the willingness of residents to recycle, particularly with regard to food waste. A Member queried whether the Council had any educational policies in respect of waste, and encouraging people to recycle more, and whether there were any plans to increase the number of items that could be recycled. Members were informed that various national and countywide campaigns ran throughout the year and the Committee would receive details of those in the report from the Gloucestershire Joint Waste Team. In terms of recycling more, the Head of Community Services explained that the waste hierarchy set out that re-using products and reducing waste should be encouraged alongside recycling which could be difficult to expand as there was a limited market for certain products, for example, there was no local market for hard plastics so those products ended up in landfill. Notwithstanding this, consideration was always being given to what else could be done, for instance, Officers were currently looking at the potential for recycling small electrical items. A Member noted that performance had been hindered by the increased level of contamination and he sought clarification as to what this meant and what was being done to address it. The Head of Community Services explained that contamination was often non-recyclables being put into recycling bins which could result in waste being rejected when it was tested at the Materials Recovery Facility in Avonmouth. There had been a particular issue in the last quarter of 2018/19 and Officers were trying to identify exactly what that was in order to work with residents to ensure it did not continue. Notwithstanding this, the outturn for the year was positive following a strong performance on the first three quarters and he pointed out that the direction of travel for this indicator should be up rather than down as set out in the report. A Member indicated that recycling had reduced from 56.53% in quarter one to 52.6% in quarter four and, should it continue at that rate, it would be below the 52% target within the next two quarters; on that basis, he questioned whether any actions for improvement were needed. In response, the Head of Community Services advised that discussions were taking place with other authorities in the county about the best measurements for recyclate.

12.4 Turning to the financial information, the Head of Finance and Asset Management informed Members that the figures at the bottom of Page No. 102 in relation to the One Legal service were incorrect and showed the previous years’ data. He confirmed that, for 2018/19, there was an overall saving of £95,000, which was £9,000 less than the figure set out in the papers. Officers were working this through to ensure there was no impact on the Statement of Accounts but Members should bear this in mind during the presentation of the report.

12.5 Members were advised that the general fund revenue outturn position for the full year 2018/19 showed a surplus of £2.68M. This was a significant increase against the quarter three surplus of £664,478 and could primarily be attributed to strong performance in treasury and commercial activities; additional business rates retention, including the impact of the successful 100% retention pilot; and substantial external grant funding being received. The table at Page No. 62, Paragraph 4.3 of the report summarised the main elements which had generated the surplus - particular reference was made to the £159,899 underspend on employees which was largely due to staff turnover and the time lag between replacements with new staff often starting on a lower spinal column salary point. In addition, ‘premises’ was underspent as a result of savings on utilities and the release of New Homes Bonus monies to support the asset maintenance programme in future years. Payments to third parties was showing a significant overspend of £543,862 as a result of work undertaken in areas such as the Community Infrastructure Levy and Joint Core Strategy, where partner finance or reserves existed to cover the cost, and also due to the overspend on the Ubico contract, detailed at Paragraphs 4.7-4.10 of the report; this had been of concern to the Executive and Overview and Scrutiny Committees during the last quarter and both had requested more information and justification. A full breakdown of expenditure by service on the contract sum, including a variance analysis by subjective heading, was attached at Appendix 5 to the report. The total Ubico overspend for the year was £268,866, of which £108,980 was in relation to employment costs which was an ongoing cost largely attributable to increased agency staff costs to cover sickness, much of which was long-term and due to the nature of the job. Another area of concern was the £93,765 overspend on transport costs, the majority of which related to tyres and Ubico had produced a briefing note on this, attached at Appendix 6 to the report, which set out that it was attributable to the fact that the fleet had been purchased at the same time and the tyres wore at the same rate; this had not been foreseen in the budget that had been produced for the financial year. Other factors contributing to the overspend included hire of vehicles, vehicle cleaning and spare parts specific to the fleet. Whilst it was the type of service that could attract large overspends, it was disappointing that the quarter three position had come as a surprise to the Council and Ubico had been working on an improvement programme within its operational and financial management to ensure timely communication of detailed information going forward. This included an overhaul of the reporting pack being issued, improved controls with regard to purchase ordering and financial training for supervisors and management. It was hoped this would help both Ubico and the Council to understand the position sooner and in greater detail.

12.6 The Head of Finance and Asset Management went on to advise that treasury performance had been strong in 2018/19 contributing to an overall surplus of £70,758, the majority of which was from investments with around £137,000 generated from the portfolio. This was offset by the increased amount of borrowing which was £67,000 over budget as a result of the acquisition of two new commercial properties at a cost of £8.5M; however, those properties had generated an additional rental income of £281,000. For the second year running, the Council was able to report a positive position on the retained business rates scheme which was partly due to a reduction in the number of appeals and also as a result of substantial grants from central government to cover the cost of the changes to the scheme in recent years. In addition to the base position with respect to retained business rates, Tewkesbury Borough Council was one of 10 members of the 100% business rate retention pilot during 2018/19 which had resulted in a net gain of £14.272M for Gloucestershire with an additional windfall of £882,000 for Tewkesbury Borough Council which was fantastic news. Overall, the Council was able to transfer a gross total of £3.46M to reserves. In terms of reserves, the net position from existing reserves and developer contributions was £615,042 which had allowed the Council to raise its total revenue reserves to £14.69M as at 31 March 2019. The significant surplus had allowed the creation of new reserves and the topping up of existing reserves to meet future needs or specific projects including a new £500,000 borough growth reserve; an additional £250,000 allocated to the working balance of the Council; an additional £133,000 allocated to the Medium Term Financial Strategy reserve which was now at £1M; an additional £200,000 to help with the vehicle replacement programme in addition to the planned contribution of £400,000; an additional sum for the business transformation programme of the Council; and a planned contribution of £175,000 to the commercial property portfolio reserve. A breakdown of the reserves was attached at Appendix 4 to the report and it was noted that they would also include substantial set asides for specific purposes including delivery of the Joint Core Strategy, transparency funding, clean high streets and exit from the European Union.

12.7 The final part of the report related to the capital programme and Members were advised that the level of capital expenditure incurred in 2018/19 totalled £10.67M, of which £8.5M was on the purchase of further investment properties – although this was less than the budgeted amount of £15.1M with the balance of £6.6M being carried forward – £1.1M on refurbishment of the Public Services Centre and £0.5M on disabled facilities grants. In summary, during 2018/19 the Council had utilised £1.05M of capital reserves, £0.9M of capital grants, £0.2M of revenue contributions and £8.5M from borrowing. The balance on capital reserves, both receipts and grants, had reduced to £1.2M as at 31 March 2019 and the commitments going forward were substantially in excess of that amount and would require borrowing. The summarised capital programme was attached at Appendix 3 to the report.

12.8 A Member noted that the Council had utilised £8.5M from borrowing in 2018/19 and she questioned how much money had been borrowed in total and the risk associated with that. In response, the Head of Finance and Asset Management advised that total borrowing amounted to £28M due to the commercial property investments that had been acquired over the last three years. The loans were secured 50/50 between short-term and long-term – the Council had taken advantage of the very low rate for short-term loans and had taken out long-term loans with the Public Works Loan Board. There was a risk around the commercial properties themselves and ensuring income was being generated to cover the borrowing cost; however, he confirmed that the Council did employ an advisor and looked for properties with long-term tenants and secure revenue streams to mitigate risk. The average term was nine or 10 years and the contracts stipulated that only upward rent reviews were permitted. It was noted that a reserve was available to improve properties if required – refurbishment could be an incentive to attract new tenants. The Head of Finance and Asset Management stressed there would always be risk attached to investing in property but he felt the Council was investing sensibly, and in the right way, and the external auditors were very happy with the method being used compared to a number of other authorities which were taking far more risks. Ultimately, any risk was far outweighed by the financial benefits.

12.9 In response to a query as to whether there was a recommended level of reserves for local authorities, Members were advised that it was for each authority to decide what was prudent. When the CIPFA resilience index had come into being, it allowed comparison of earmarked and unallocated reserves in order to give a feel of where the authority stood – whilst Tewkesbury Borough Council was in the middle in terms of earmarked reserves, it was at the lower end when it came to uncommitted reserves and did need to improve in this regard. He reiterated that the total revenue reserves were £14.69M and this was the highest he had known it to be. The Chief Executive felt it should be borne in mind that much of the money was already earmarked for a function and was not available to spend freely. It was important to ensure reserves were healthy to allow the Council to do what it needed to do going forward, particularly in terms of facilitating the growth which the borough was expecting over the coming years, and to provide some protection against government uncertainty. A Member presumed that the Executive Committee received more detailed feedback in respect of reserves and felt that it would be helpful to see a breakdown of the delivery of reserves against commitments along with timescales and targets. In response, the Head of Finance and Asset Management indicated he would be happy to prepare a report to bring back to a future meeting.

12.10 A Member drew attention to the general fund outturn at Appendix 2 and sought an explanation in relation to the £3.9M surplus on transfer payments in the benefits service. The Head of Finance and Asset Management confirmed that the figures were correct and related to housing benefits payments; in previous years this had been around £19/20M but a further drop was anticipated the following year to around £13.6M. The £3.9M surplus meant there was a reduction in the amount that could be recovered from the government but housing benefit did effectively balance itself out. Another Member went on to question what budget was allocated for planning appeals as he could not see these figures in the papers and questioned why the Council appointed barristers when the service could be provided in-house by One Legal. The Head of Development Services explained that the cost of appeals was effectively contained within the Development Services budget, albeit not specified, and she confirmed that approximately £50,000 per annum was spent on planning appeals. She went on to advise that, if the appellant was using a barrister, it was often prudent for the Council to provide a barrister as well.

12.11 A Member sought a brief explanation on the Council’s relationship with Ubico. The Head of Finance and Asset Management clarified that Ubico was a local authority-owned teckal company which was owned 100% by shareholders, of which there were currently seven including Tewkesbury Borough Council. The vehicle fleet was owned by the Council and this was one of the provisions within the contract. With regard to the Ubico overspend, a Member drew attention to Page No. 107, Paragraph 2.7 of the briefing note at Appendix 6 to the report which stated that, from August 2018, Ubico undertook a series of measures to make sure that drivers were appropriately inspecting their vehicles and he questioned what had been done before that as it was his understanding that drivers must undertake safety checks before leaving the depot. He also questioned whether there would be a cost implication from vehicles travelling to the Energy from Waste plant at Javelin Park as opposed to the landfill site at Wingmoor Farm. The Head of Community Services stressed that the briefing note focused on tyre checks and he confirmed absolutely that drivers had been carrying out daily checks on the vehicles each morning prior to that date and that this data was all recorded and audited. In terms of Javelin Park, he believed there would be a beneficial impact in terms of vehicle damage, and some routes would be shorter than they were currently; however, it would be a different type of driving, i.e. on the motorway rather than minor roads, so it would be necessary to assess this after a period of time to establish whether any action needed to be taken. The Member questioned when the Council would start to take waste to Javelin Park and was advised that Javelin Park was contracted to take waste from the end of June but the Council was likely to start delivering between 1 and 3 July. In response to another query as to why so many tyres had needed to be replaced at the same time, the Head of Finance and Asset Management advised that Ubico estimated that the average life of tyres was approximately 20,000 miles and they would generally require replacement after 15/16 months – the Council’s fleet had been purchased in 2017 so this should have been anticipated and the budget had been amended to ensure there was a proper designation going forward. A Member drew attention to Page No. 109, Paragraph 3.11 of the report, which stated that Ubico’s introduction of driving assessors may also help to reduce tyre damage and wear further by improving the skill level of drivers to reduce incidents of mounting kerbs when manoeuvring and improving driving style overall and he questioned whether this was really necessary. The Head of Community Services confirmed that there were potential savings to be made as any erratic driving styles could be identified via a driver assessment. A Member indicated that he often observed refuse collectors in his area and witnessed them driving over pavements etc. in order to get the job done as quickly as possible – this not only led to premature vehicle deterioration but also had a negative impact on highways and pavements and he questioned whether spot checks were undertaken. The Head of Community Services explained the Audit Team regularly carried out fleet checks, Ubico also had its own auditors and third-party checks were undertaken by the Driver and Vehicle Safety Authority (DVSA) to ensure compliance with the operator licence; this was based on a RAG (Red, Amber, Green) rating and Ubico was currently green. It was intended to establish a small Member Working Group to look at all aspects of the Ubico contract in order to ensure Members had confidence that value for money was being achieved, and to provide assurance that everything was being done as it should be, and he confirmed that Terms of Reference would be brought back to the next Overview and Scrutiny Committee meeting.

12.12 A Member went on to question whether Officers were happy with the briefing note at Appendix 6 and she was curious as to why the Council was responsible for the overspend on tyres as she thought it should have been factored in to the budget. She also queried whether it would be cheaper to hire vehicles as opposed to purchasing them in future. In terms of hire vs. purchase, the Head of Finance and Asset Management explained that an exercise had been undertaken in 2017 when the fleet had been replaced and the Council’s financial circumstances had meant that purchase had been considered the better option as this came from capital as opposed to revenue. At the time, one third of the £200,000 budget had been set aside for maintenance, including tyres, as an agreed indicator in the contract; the overall budget had now been increased to £150,000 and money was included in the reserves for vehicle replacement. In response to a query as to whether Officers had confidence in Ubico to rectify the problems going forward, the Head of Finance and Asset Management advised that the processes and procedures for monitoring and managing all pointed in the right direction and the structure for reporting was as he would expect - Officers would get to see the information at the end of quarter one. He had been involved in the selection process for the new Financial Controller who had been in post for six months and was starting to make positive changes. Notwithstanding this, he reiterated that this was the type of service where overspends may occur and that should be borne in mind going forward.

12.13 Having considered the information provided, it was

RESOLVED That the performance management information for quarter 4 of 2018/19 be NOTED.

Supporting documents: