Agenda item

Council Plan Performance Tracker and COVID-19 Recovery Tracker - Quarter 1 2020/21

Meeting of Overview and Scrutiny, Tuesday, 13 October 2020 4:30 pm (Item 28.)

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

Minutes:

28.1 The report of the Head of Corporate Services, circulated at Pages No. 63-144, attached the performance management and recovery information for quarter one of 2020/2021. The Overview and Scrutiny Committee was asked to review and scrutinise the performance and recovery information and, where appropriate, identify any issues to refer to the Executive Committee for clarification or further action to be taken. Prior to the presentation of the report, which was a huge document containing a significant amount of information, the Chair pointed out that obviously the quarter four performance tracker, considered at the Committee’s meeting in July, was the last update before COVID-19 and the quarter one data now before Members was the first update since the start of the pandemic. He felt that it was important to point this out as just reviewing the information, without this in mind, could fill Members with despair given the number of unsmiling faces but undoubtedly this was as a result of the pandemic and he asked Members to bear this in mind when scrutinising the information before them.

28.2 In presenting the report the Head of Corporate Services indicated that there were three elements to the report: the Council Plan tracker; the Recovery Plan tracker; and the financial information update. He indicated that he would deal with the first two elements and take any questions on those and then hand over to the Head of Finance and Asset Management to deal with the final element on the Council’s finances. He advised Members that the Council Plan tracker information could be found at Appendix 1 on Page No. 80 onwards and included the actions on the two new priority areas in the Council Plan, that of Garden Communities and Sustainable Environment. He indicated that there was a lot of detailed information in both of the tracker documents but hopefully on Pages No. 63-72 of the report, he had pulled out, by exception, the key points for Members consideration; for example at Paragraph 2.3 some of the key successful activities and projects specific to the Council Plan were listed and Paragraph 2.4 set out those activities and projects that had not progressed as swiftly as would have been anticipated many of which were due to the significant organisational effort involved in responding to COVID-19. In respect of the latter, new timescales had been added or the actions had simply been put on hold until there was sufficient capacity in the organisation to take them forward. Reference was made to the first action in the table at Paragraph 2.4 which related to the Trade Waste Service where the timescale had been amended but assurance could be given that this timescale could be achieved based on the high level project plan that was to be considered later in the meeting. Three of the amended timescales related to work on the Joint Core Strategy which now had new milestone dates of Summer 2021; however, it was evident from the commentary that the revised dates were not as a result of the pandemic. The next table shown on Page No.68, at Paragraph 2.5 (shown as 2.3 in error within the report), provided information on the actions that had effectively been put on hold due to resources being deployed elsewhere and Paragraph 3 provided a summary of the position, at the end of quarter one, in relation to the suite of key performance indicators (KPIs) contained within the Council Plan. The table in Paragraph 3.3, on Page No. 70, detailed those key performance indicators where the targets had not been achieved and/or the direction of travel was showing a downwards trajectory compared with the previous year. As could be seen from the commentary against these actions, the impact of the pandemic was noticeable whether it was the ability of Officers to perform enforcement visits (KPIs 17 and 18) or the impact on recycled and residual waste (KPIs 33 and 34). Nevertheless, there were a number of key performance indicators that were shown on Pages No. 71-72 that were performing well and these included, for example, the processing of benefit claims (KPI 24) the determination of minor planning applications (KPI 13) and a reduction in the average number of sick days (KPI 28).

28.3 Referring to the Recovery Tracker, attached at Appendix 2 of the report from Page No. 170 onwards, the Head of Corporate Services explained that for consistency and familiarity the same format used for the Council Plan Tracker had been followed. The Recovery Plan had been approved by the Executive Committee at its meeting on 5 August and assigned to the Overview and Scrutiny Committee for monitoring. He explained that the Council’s priorities had not changed because of COVID-19 and it still wanted to deliver the same outcomes to residents, communities and businesses therefore the Recovery Plan and its actions had been based upon the Council Plan priorities. The Head of Corporate Services sited the example of the Economic and Tourism Strategy which the Council continued to deliver albeit with re-focused actions as a result of the pandemic. He referred to Paragraph 4.2, on Page No.72, which set out some of the key activities undertaken as part of the Recovery Plan which ranged from significant support for businesses provided by the Growth Hub and Environmental Health teams, working with Places for People to safely re-open the Leisure Centre through to the formation of the Business Transformation team. Given the synergy between the two tracker documents they had been, and would continue to be, reported together in order to show Members the complete picture together with the financial position which would add to the overall picture and would be presented by the Head of Finance and Asset Management after scrutiny of the two tracker documents had taken place. In conclusion, the Head of Corporate Services indicated that the caveat to all of the actions in the tracker documents, but particularly in relation to those in the Recovery Plan and the Plan itself, was that at the time of approval it was wholly relevant as the country moved towards recovery; however, the position in relation to COVID-19 was changing rapidly and at any point the Council could be back in full response mode which would obviously have an impact on both tracker documents. Some services were already creeping back to a response mode, for example, the administration of government grants with responsibility for the new self-isolation grant being supported by the Council and High Street safety measures that were being implemented as part of the changing national picture.

28.4 During the debate which ensued, the following queries and comments were made in relation to the Council Plan and Recovery Plan trackers:

Priority: Housing and Communities

P92 – Objective 1 – Action d)

Carry out housing needs assessments to deliver affordable housing in rural areas - a Member asked what the significance was of moving the date three years, from March 2020 to March 2023, as opposed to a one or two year slippage. He queried whether the work involved was so significant that a three-year delay could be justified.

The Head of Community Services explained that a realistic view had been taken as there was quite a lot of work to be done across the Borough and particularly in the smaller Parishes. The Gloucestershire Rural Partnership was used to assist with this work and therefore he was assuming that the estimated timescale had been provided by that organisation. However, he indicated that he would clarify this and advise the Member accordingly outside of the meeting. The Chair asked that the information be provided to Democratic Services so that all Members of the Committee could receive it.

P92 – Objective 2 – Action a)

Ensure adequate land is allocated within the Joint Core Strategy (JCS) and Tewkesbury Borough Plan to meet housing need - a Member referred to the government White Paper on Planning reforms which could result in a total change to the current system. He reminded Members that currently the JCS was looking to allocate and cover the needs of Cheltenham and Gloucester. However, the White Paper basically abolished the duty to co-operate and as a result of the Council having more land it would get a higher allocation. He questioned if the proposals started to progress through Parliament, whether it would be possible to delay the JCS without any further implications on the Council. Alternatively, he asked whether there was any way to change the allocations to be included as part of Tewkesbury’s quota rather than that of Cheltenham and Gloucester as Tewkesbury would still need to find land for increased amounts of housing.

The Head of Development Services indicated that, as the Member had pointed out, the JCS review and the inter-relationship with the White Paper was fundamental to the Council. As Members were also aware, the JCS was a key planning document for the Council as it would shape the growth of the Borough in terms of spatial housing and employment distribution. She explained that currently there was a slight delay to the timetable for the JCS as there were a number of technical studies that needed to be undertaken to ensure there was a robust evidence base and it was also necessary to review some of the existing evidence in view of COVID-19 particularly relating to employment and how to progress an economic strategy. Work on the JCS would not be stopped because of the White Paper as the evidence work still needed to be undertaken; whatever the eventual outcome on the reforms, this work was still necessary to inform the Council going forward. The Head of Development Services stressed that, even if the duty to co-operate was abolished, it did not mean that the Council could stop working with its neighbours as this was actively encouraged to assess the spatial distribution of housing and employment. The message was still very much that Councils must work together and look at wider geographical areas and cross-boundary. Obviously it was necessary to await the outcome of the consultation on the White Paper so Officers would be twin tracking the work undertaken so the Council would be in a position to move forward under the new system, whatever that maybe, should that prove to be appropriate dependant on timescales. However, for the time being it was felt that the work being undertaken would be beneficial under both systems with reviews being undertaken at certain key milestones to assess the best way to move forward. The response given prompted the Member to request that the Council, as part of the review, did not agree to meet the housing allocations of other authorities as the White Paper proposed reducing the numbers where authorities had no land to build on and increasing the housing numbers for areas like Tewkesbury that had land available for development. He agreed that the evidence-based work needed to be done but was keen to ensure the Council controlled the allocation of housing and particularly to which authorities it was being allocated whilst the White Paper progressed. He was of the view that, if this was not possible, the review should be delayed. The Head of Development Services indicated that the Council’s response to the White Paper, along with many other authorities, strongly objected to the proposed algorithm to be used to determine housing numbers as it resulted in a disproportionate amount of housing being allocated to rural authorities like Tewkesbury and it was hoped in the light of the strong representations being made across the country that the government would revise the algorithm accordingly. In terms of when the distribution of housing was assessed as part of the JCS review, the Head of Development Services indicated that this was not something that needed to be done now it would be part of the process once the housing numbers that the Council needed to deliver were known. The Chief Executive stressed that this was only a consultation document and the government was already indicating that changes may be made particularly in relation to the algorithm and whilst the duty to co-operate may be abolished he was of the view that something would be put in its place as all of the messages currently coming from government were that authorities should work in partnership in relation to planning and other services.

P94 - Objective 2 – Action c)

Annually monitor the delivery of homes within the Borough - a Member referred to the commentary which indicated that the Council was in the process of updating its five-year housing land supply calculation and it was the intention to publish this document on the Council’s website by the end of October. She questioned whether Members would be informed when the document was ready to be published and if the content would be self-explanatory.

The Head of Development Services indicated that she was unaware of what the Council’s previous policy was on this but she stated that, as soon as the document was published, she would ensure all Members received an email advising of publication with a link to the document on the Council’s website. In terms of ensuring that the information in the document was clear, she indicated that she hoped that this would be the case but would review it prior to publication to be absolutely sure.

Priority: Customer First

P107 – KPI 26 – Percentage of Council tax collected - a Member referred to the fact that Council Tax collection performance had been significantly affected by COVID-19 and, as a consequence, a reduced figure of only 29.5% had been collected during the first quarter. He maintained that it would have been useful if the percentage figure that was normally collected had been included for comparison purposes and he requested to be provided with this figure.

The Head of Corporate Services indicated that the collection rate was 0.5% below the target which was in line with what was normally collected.

Priority: Sustainable Environment

P.115- KPI 33 – Percentage of Waste Recycled or composted and

P116 – KPI 34 – Residual Household Waste collected per property in KGs – a Member drew attention to the fact that the percentage of recycled waste had gone down and the residual waste had increased. He maintained that the residents of Tewkesbury Borough were normally very diligent when it came to recycling yet it appeared that during the first part of the pandemic they wasted more and recycled less. He enquired whether there was any known reason for this to have occurred.

The Head of Community Services explained that the Borough residents were normally very good at recycling but during lockdown there was a massive increase in waste and, by the nature of people storing more waste, they had simply disposed of it in the nearest receptacle without thought as to whether that was the appropriate disposal method. There was also an increase in contamination of recycled waste as Members may recall that initially during lockdown there was a tendency for people to start clearing out garages, lofts etc. and this led to some rather unusual items appearing in the recycling receptacles which people may have thought could be recycled but obviously could not; going forward extra education campaigns would be put in place. In addition, there was a lot of stockpiling of food when the pandemic first started which then ended up in the food waste bin or the normal bin. Another factor to be considered was the closure of the household recycling centres. Taking all this together, the Head of Community Services did not think it was surprising that the overall result was an increase in waste and an increase in contamination of recycled waste. The other side of this matter was the reduction in the recycling market which resulted in the need for quality recycling in areas such as paper and this had resulted in loads being rejected which then counted towards the Council’s waste figure and not its recycling figure. A Member enquired whether it was possible to process waste more efficiently to ensure that it was not contaminated rather than having it refused at the Materials Recycling Facility (MRF). The Head of Community Services indicated that a number of checks were carried out to identify contamination both at the point at which the recycled waste was collected and when it was stored prior to transit to the MRF; any obvious contamination was removed provided it was practical and safe to do so. Nevertheless, when 20 tonnes of waste was being transported it was inevitable that things would slip through the net on occasions. The crews were very good at putting stickers on bins and not collecting recycled material that was obviously contaminated and, as he had previously indicated, education campaigns were taking place but with everyone producing more waste, and the market for recycled goods currently in decline, there was little more that could be done.

Priority: Customer First

P.107 – KPI 28 – Average No. of sick days per full-time equivalent -

a Member stated that, whilst obviously it was good news that there had been a dramatic reduction in the number of sick days compared with last year, he wondered what the reasons for this were.

In terms of the reduction in sickness, the Head of Corporate Services stated that whilst there had been a reduction in long term sickness the reduction in short term sickness had been quite significant which it was felt could be partly attributed to working from home. With many Officers not working in the office they were less susceptible to minor ailments such as colds and stomach bugs. Also it could be that Officers who were feeling unwell felt that they could continue to work within the comfort of their own home which may not have been the case if they had to come into the Council Offices. Clearly this would need to be closely monitored as, if they were really unwell, they should be refraining from work and concentrating on recovery and wellbeing which was very important to the management team. He indicated that Human Resources had done a lot of work around health and wellbeing during the pandemic and that could also have contributed to the reduction in sick days. The HR Manager indicated that this was a pattern being seen across other organisations as well where sickness levels had dropped. Whilst this was good news for the Council, work had been ongoing to ensure that staff kept well, and the levels of sickness could be maintained once the pandemic was over. She advised Members of the work that HR had been undertaking which included training on effective remote working, managing difficult telephone calls, mental health training and wellbeing sessions covering issues such as sleep and managing finances. In addition, the Council was paying for staff to have flu jabs by reimbursing the cost, and the sickness process was being proactively managed to ensure good practice was being followed. A Member commented that these figures provided a good argument for some level of home working to continue once the pandemic was over.

Priority: Finance and Resources

P81 - Objective 3 - Action c)

Review property portfolio to ensure ongoing benefits to our communities - a Member questioned whether the pandemic had created any problems for the Council’s business tenants in terms of being able to meet their financial liabilities and whether there had been any indication of future problems.

The Head of Finance and Asset Management indicated that so far, the Council’s commercial portfolio was holding up well and none of the tenants had reported any problems. A partial deferment of rent had been agreed with one tenant, but this had now ended, and full rent was being paid. Everything seemed to be going well for the businesses with some experiencing a business boom; one business specialising in homebrew, gin and other alcohol products had seen a significant increase in demand.

28.5 The Chair asked a general question about what action was going to be taken in terms of prioritising projects/activities considering the ongoing pandemic. There were a lot of unsmiling faces in the quarter one data and it was clear that not everything could be delivered and therefore he questioned what action was going to be taken to assess realistically what could be progressed and what could be put on hold. The Deputy Chief Executive stated that an exercise being known as the “greying out” of certain projects had already started, as could be seen on Page No. 68 of the report, but clearly further reprioritisation work was necessary and a template had been sent to all Heads of Service to work with their teams to enable a critical assessment of what projects they felt unable to take forward, what projects could be progressed but with revised delivery dates and what new projects may come forward as part of the COVID-19 recovery process that would supersede projects already in the tracker documents. All this information would be collated and included in the quarter two performance report to be presented to the Overview and Scrutiny Committee in January. This would allow Members to assess and scrutinise the complete picture in terms of which projects had been “parked” and for what reason, new milestones and key dates for projects and any new projects that had been brought forward as part of the recovery process.

28.6 The Chair also questioned the impact on various projects, KPIs etc. of the departure of the Deputy Chief Executive. It was explained that the Corporate Leadership Team was currently assessing all of the projects which the Deputy Chief Executive was overseeing and determining the best way forward ensuring that none of the projects would suffer due to his departure, with new mechanisms being put in place and detailed handovers to be arranged. The Chief Executive confirmed that it was the intention for detailed proposals on the way forward to be presented to Council in December.

28.7 Finally, the Chair asked about lessons learnt from the first wave of the pandemic that would be used to inform how a second wave would be dealt with whilst also allowing some of the recovery measures to be implemented as the Council fluctuated between response and recovery; he gave a number of examples of lessons that had been learnt by the NHS that were now being implemented for new Covid-19 cases. The Deputy Chief Executive indicated that a lot had been learnt that would inform the Council’s response going forward; he cited examples of improvements in the redeployment of staff to support initiatives such as the Help Hub, improvements in remote working, the experiences gained from administering grants for businesses, and more recently self-isolation grants, supporting business with webinars, electronic newsletters etc. and ensuring that the voluntary sector had the assistance it needed to deliver in the community. Clearly, the experiences from the first wave would ensure that the Council was able to respond quickly to the needs of residents and businesses and Officers were continually learning to ensure residents were provided with the services they needed. The Head of Corporate Services advised the Committee that the Council had to prepare an Annual Governance Statement and the guidelines for the current year’s statement included a ‘lessons learnt’ section as a result of the pandemic which would be in two parts; lessons learned and implemented and lessons learned that were longer term and needed to be implemented. He also gave some examples of lessons learned in respect of IT and communications and indicated that, for the longer term, there was a need to ensure that business intelligence was robust and proactively applied across the Council. It was likely that the lessons learned review would be reported to the Overview and Scrutiny Committee sometime in the new year.

28.8 The Head of Finance and Asset Management presented Pages. No.73-78 of the report which contained a summary of the Council’s financial performance for the period to the end of June this year with Appendices 3-6 providing some added detail. He indicated that unfortunately he had to report a significant deficit within the General Fund due to the impact of COVID-19 however the deficit was not as great as had first been feared. The report now before Members brought together the COVID-19 impact with normal operational expenditure activity providing an overall financial position for the first quarter which resulted in a deficit of £444,218. Paragraph 5 of the report set out a summary of the position with added detail contained in Appendix 3. As it was necessary to report to the government on COVID-19 costs, direct expenditure in this respect had been split out and was shown in the table at Paragraph 5.2 totalling around £285,000. The main components of that spend tended to be the amounts being put into the Leisure Centre in line with the Places for People leisure contract, the rollout of laptops to enable remote working and UBICO costs to keep the service running including protection of staff, backfilling and overtime. As expected, income was substantially down with a deficit in excess of £400,000, the detail of which was set out on Page No.75 of the report, but there were indications in respect of quarter two suggesting a recovery in some areas with both planning and parking income improving; although whether this would be sustained was unknown as parking income for September was already starting to drop again so the quarter three figures would be interesting. The Head of Finance and Asset Management thought it was also worth mentioning that a claim had been made for irrecoverable income losses from sales, fees and charges for the first four months of the year which, taking account of the parameters of the scheme, had totalled approximately £173,000; further claims would be made every four months with the next claim being made in December.

28.9 The Head of Finance and Asset Management drew attention to the fact that the additional expenditure and loss of income had been offset by savings in operational expenditure the largest of which related to employees accounting for just over £229,000. There had been a number of vacant posts during the first quarter coupled with delays in recruitment, although this was picking up during the second quarter; there were increasing numbers of requests to fill posts, responses to adverts were higher and appointments were now being made. The other factor contributing to the underspend was the pay award with 2% being set aside in the budget to meet this and as a result approximately £35,000 of the underspend was attributable to the award not having been agreed and paid during the first quarter. As Members would be aware the actual award had only recently been agreed at 2.75% and the cost of the arrears backdated to April would show in October/November when the payments were made Nevertheless, a contingency sum had been allocated in reserves and this would be brought into the budget during the second half of the year to create a match off for the increased costs. To date the Council had received £1.12 million to meet the additional costs resulting from the pandemic and, as mentioned previously, claims were being made separately for income losses. The Chancellor had last night announced a further £1 billion of support for local authorities but it was not yet known what proportion would be made available to Tewkesbury Borough Council. Also included in the report, at Paragraph 5.8, was a forecast of the full year impact of COVID-19 which was still in the region of £3 million as reported earlier in the year. Looking at the position just before the end of September, there was some improvement with income increasing and COVID-19 costs decreasing but that was already starting to change as the virus numbers began to increase.

28.10 Paragraph 6 of the report set out the position in respect of the capital budget and Paragraph 7 the position on reserves. As expected for the first quarter there had been little movement with the exception of a property purchase and a deposit being paid on a second acquisition which was expected to complete in October. In response to a question in relation to the final figures shown at the end of the table on Corporate Codes, on Page No.73, the Head of Finance and Asset Management indicated that unfortunately the tables had not been particularly well labelled so it was not clear how the figures added up. The totals at the bottom of the table on Corporate Codes were not the Corporate Codes total they also included the sub-total brought forward from the Services Expenditure. Going forward a sub-total would be included under the Corporate Codes and then an overall total to make it clearer for Members. A Member queried whether the £25,000 overspend on payments to third parties related to Ubico but the Head of Finance and Asset Management advised that Ubico expenditure was on track for the first quarter and that there was a range of items that accounted for this overspend including the MRF contract for the disposal of recycled waste. The Chair questioned whether the Council’s financial position would have an impact on the tracker activities and key performance indicators. The Head of Finance and Asset Management indicated that he felt that the Council was in a good position in the current financial year; hopefully there would be further funding from the government and there was a significant business rate collection fund surplus that could be used to support the net costs of the pandemic. Looking to the future at next year’s budget and beyond things were a little more unclear; as yet there was no confirmation from the government on funding sources, the levels of funding and the ongoing impact of COVID-19 in terms of income and expenditure levels. Assessing this, and balancing it against the Council’s ambitions, the two may not add up and therefore it was likely that over the coming months an exercise of examining how resources were allocated and into what priority areas would need to be undertaken taking account of the Council’s ambitions. Obviously, Members would be kept informed as further information became available and Officers would work with Members in examining some of these issues.

28.11 Having fully considered the information provided, it was

RESOLVED That the performance management information for quarter one of 2020/2021 be NOTED.

Supporting documents: