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

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

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

Minutes:

56.1          The report of the Head of Corporate Services, circulated at Pages No. 35-119, attached the performance management and recovery information for quarter two of 2020/2021 along with a financial update for the period. 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.

56.2          In presenting the report, the Head of Corporate Services indicated that there were three elements: the Council Plan tracker; the Recovery Plan tracker; and the financial information update. He advised 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.

56.3          Members were advised that the ongoing impact of the COVID-19 pandemic had been detrimental to some priorities with resources being redeployed to support staff, residents, businesses and communities whilst maintaining core service delivery. The recovery plan had been established to address those challenges and included a number of objectives and actions. The report presented the second quarter update of the new Council Plan with several key successful activities since the last performance report, which were set out at Paragraph 2.3. However, some actions had been put on hold as staff resources had been deployed to the response and recovery from COVID-19; those had been deferred (greyed out) in the Council Plan and included: introducing and complying with the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy’s (CIPFA’s) new financial management code; updating the Council’s asset management plan; approving a new planned maintenance programme; in-sourcing the management of the homeless property portfolio; working with the Local Enterprise Partnership and other partners to deliver the Local Industrial Strategy; bringing forward plans for the redevelopment of Spring Gardens; continuing to improve the proactive homelessness prevention programme; working with Gloucestershire County Council and other partners to help local residents and businesses take action to reduce their own carbon footprint and to make better use of resources; and improving bio-diversity across the Borough and educating communities on its benefits. Paragraph 4.3 of the report explained how the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic was impacting actions within the recovery tracker as some services were operating across response, recovery or business as usual mode or, in some cases, across all three. Unfortunately, since writing the report at the beginning of December, the national picture had changed dramatically again which would impact further on the information to be presented at quarter three. Paragraph 3.2 of the report gave a high level overview of service related Key Performance Indicators which were showing a decline in the direction of travel of performance compared to the previous year or not meeting target in the current year. However, it was noted that performance compared to national figures was still good for a number of the Key Performance Indicators. Paragraph 3.4 set out the new Key Performance Indicators, or areas where key indicators were performing particularly well, which included KPI 24: an average of seven days was being taken to process new benefit claims which was below the national average of 17 days; KPI 28: a dramatic reduction had been seen in the average number of sick days per full-time equivalent when compared against last year; KPI 30: 92% of freedom of information requests received during quarter two were answered within the 20 working day timescale which was above the 80% target; and KPI 31: 42 formal complaints were received of which only three were answered outside of the timescale resulting in 93% being answered in time.

56.4          Referring to Paragraph 3.2 of the report, a Member noted that, in terms of direction of travel status, there were eight indicators that were better than last year, 10 which were not as good and three where data was not available and he questioned why the data was not available. In response, the Head of Corporate Services explained that two of those related to Citizens Advice Bureau data which had not been received due to the immense pressure the service had been under; however, he was aware that the data had now been received by the Lead Officer and could be circulated outside of the meeting. In addition, the Member referred to the table at Paragraph 5.2 of the report and questioned what MRP stood for and, at Paragraph 5.4, what the relationship was between Tewkesbury Borough Council and the Ministry of Defence in respect of the income deficit that was highlighted in that paragraph.  In response, the Head of Finance and Asset Management explained that MRP was Minimum Revenue Provision which was essentially the amount of money the Council needed to set aside each year to pay back its debt, e.g. it had borrowed money to purchase commercial properties and this was the annual set aside to pay for that. The Chair reminded Officers that the Committee had previously asked for acronyms in reports to be kept to a minimum. In terms of the Ministry of Defence (MoD), the Head of Finance and Asset Management explained that it had been anticipated that an application for the MoD site at Ashchurch was to have been submitted but Officers were now aware that this was not likely in the current financial year hence the deficit reported. The Development Manager confirmed that the Planning Agent had indicated an application was expected, and the fee would be substantial, but this was likely to be in the next financial year. In response to a query about the commercial property in Tipton, the Head of Finance and Asset Management confirmed that the Council had purchased the industrial site in the first quarter of the financial year – it comprised five industrial units which formed the complex now in the Council’s ownership.

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

Priority: Finance and Resources


P54 – Objective 4b) in-source the management of our homeless property portfolio – a Member noted that bringing the management in-house had been deferred and the contract to manage the properties had been extended - he questioned what the cost to the Council was. 

The Head of Finance and Asset Management confirmed that the estimated saving on bringing the service in-house was £18,000 per year; however, the impact on services from COVID-19 had meant it was not possible to manage the properties in-house so the best way to continue provision for the year was to remain with the current contractor.

Priority: Economic Growth

P61 – Objective 4c) celebrate with partners the significance of 2021 for Tewkesbury – a Member felt the target date of December 2021 seemed very late and questioned whether there was a date in the project plan where the money would not be spent if there were no events planned due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Another Member questioned whether local Members would be updated.

The Community and Economic Development Manager advised that he was in constant communication with the Steering Group, which was a separate organisation that the Council had representation on. The December date was included because there would be events taking place throughout 2021. Unfortunately the project had been severely affected by the pandemic and not being able to plan effectively. However there were discussions ongoing about what could be done online – although this would obviously reduce the impact of the events – and looking at whether anything could be moved to 2022 - although that would be difficult given the celebration was about the year 2021. No firm decisions had been made as yet given the ever changing situation.

The Community and Economic Development Manager advised that he would ensure all Members were updated via the Member Update when any plans had been confirmed.

Priority: Housing and Communities


P71, P72 and P73 – KPI 12 – percentage of ‘major’ applications determined within 13 weeks or alternative period agreed with the applicant; KPI 13 – percentage of ‘minor’ applications determined within eight weeks or alternative period agreed with the applicant; KPI 14 – percentage of ‘other’ applications determined within eight weeks or alternative period agreed with the applicant; KPI 17 – investigate Category C cases within 10 working days (risk of material harm to environment or undue harm to residential amenity); and KPI 18 – investigate Category D cases within 15 working days (breaches causing limited material disturbance to local residents or to the environment) – a Member noted that all of these were below target and unlikely to be achieved and he questioned the reasons for this. In particular he queried why there was a problem with the minor applications being determined and what the reasons were for the requests for extension of time. Another Member noted that there had been a shared agreement between Tewkesbury Borough and Gloucester City Councils and he questioned what impact there had been on the Council’s service and budget now that arrangement had ended. It was also queried whether the targets were too high, and therefore unachievable, and whether the external communications were as good as they should be.

The Development Manager explained that, in terms of minor applications, performance had been extraordinary in quarter one and had now dipped. In relation to the requests for extension of time, this would have been either the Council or the applicant looking for an extension and could be for various reasons. During the first lockdown this was partly due to Officers struggling to get out on site and the amount of processes that needed changing, so Officers had been almost routinely asking for extensions of time, however, whilst they had not been doing that as a matter of routine more recently, the impact of COVID-19 had created some backlog. There were also some capacity issues in both the Planning Admin and Planning Officer teams - primarily from sickness absence – and the service was currently recruiting in both teams to try and address the backlog.

The Head of Development Services advised that the Council had a shared agreement with Gloucester City Council but that had now ceased and the Development Manager had returned full-time to Tewkesbury Borough Council. In addition, the Business Transformation Officer had returned to the Borough Council for a couple of days a week since November – that post was looking to improve some of the processes of the planning service. The Development Manager’s full-time post was within budget and that post coming back full-time had made a difference to the service. The Development Manager had been overseeing how the service had dealt with the COVID-19 pandemic, e.g. ensuring all Officers could work from home and that the virtual Planning Committee was in place, as well as overseeing a number of appeals. The new procedures were now in place and the Development Manager would be focusing on the management of the service to make improvements and ensure it was working efficiently. The Head of Development Services indicated that she was keen to see improvements to the planning service and this was one of her key drivers.

In terms of targets, the Head of Development Services confirmed that the national targets had to be met but she would be happy to take a report to Management Team to look at revising the localised targets, which were higher than the national targets, as it was her view that some of the localised targets were unachievable in the current circumstances of the COVID-19 pandemic. 

The Head of Development Services acknowledged that external communications were not as good as she would like but this was a top priority to address and she hoped to see improvements in the next few weeks.

Priority: Customer First

P80 – KPI 26 – percentage of Council Tax collected – a Member felt that 57.5% was not very much and implied there were a fair number of people not paying their Council Tax and there seemed to be nothing the Council could do about it because of COVID-19 – she questioned what the knock on effect of that was. Another Member noted that, when the Courts opened, there was likely to be a large strain on some teams and he questioned whether help would be diverted to them if needed.

The Head of Corporate Services advised that this was actually only 0.8% down on the projected target but unfortunately the Council was unable to do anything to address it as the Courts were not up and running yet with no date available as to when they would be. Officers were sending out reminders but there was no enforcement action behind it. He understood there were a few thousand summons in the pipeline so when the Courts did reopen the Council would need to obtain Liability Orders. This would put more pressure on the team due to phone calls etc.

In terms of the impact on finances of not collecting the Council Tax, the Head of Finance and Asset Management indicated that it was currently estimated there would be a 2% deficit which equated to around £1.2 million in Council Tax – this was not unusual as the Council did have outstanding amounts at every year-end but that was usually collected in the next year which resulted in very few write-offs; however, the period for the next couple of years would most likely be trickier for people paying Council Tax, meaning write-offs may increase but they were not expected to increase dramatically.

In terms of irrecoverables, the Council would be making a claim to the government’s local tax income guarantee scheme and the team would be trying to recover outstanding amounts when and how they could.

Referring to the effect on budget, the Head of Finance and Asset Management confirmed that the Council normally had a surplus on Council Tax that fed into the budget, he felt it was likely to still be in surplus but much reduced – normally the surplus was around £80,000 but it was estimated to most likely be closer to zero; however it was good that current estimates showed it as not being in deficit.

The Chief Executive advised that throughout the COVID-19 crisis resources had been redeployed to where they were needed and this would continue, particularly around income collection. Management Team would be reviewing resources around that and the Council would be chasing down debts.

P82 – KPI 29 - food establishment hygiene ratings – a Member noted that there appeared to be an overall increase of 61 premises on the previous year – he felt this was surprising and questioned what the reason was. In addition, he was of the view that a target of no more than 5% of businesses having a hygiene rating of three seemed quite low and questioned whether this could be improved.

The Head of Community Services advised that the reason for the increase was that a lot of businesses that would not normally serve food had registered to provide takeaways throughout the pandemic. In terms of the target, he felt it was a fairly good stretch target as it had not always been met in previous years but he was happy to review the target and bring it back to a future meeting.

Priority: Sustainable Environment

P86 – objective 2b) - improve bio-diversity across the Borough and educate communities on its benefits – a Member was very pleased a maintenance plan was being prepared for the Grangefield and questioned whether there was a date when that would be ready and whether it would include seeding.

The Community and Economic Development Manager explained that this was a funding agreement with the European Union which remained in place despite the UK leaving the European Union. The agreement meant the Council had to have the plan in place by the Spring and he would share that with the Councillor when it was ready. In terms of the seeding of wildflowers, he anticipated that would be included in the plan but he would have to take advice from colleagues on seeding times.

P88 – KPI 32 – number of reported enviro-crimes - a Member noted that 580 enviro-crimes had been reported in quarter two which brought the total to 92 this year so far – he questioned whether this was an error.

The Head of Corporate Services confirmed this was an error and the total should read 927.

56.6          The Head of Finance and Asset Management presented Pages. No. 45-51 of the report which contained a summary of the Council’s financial performance for quarter two with Appendices 3-6 providing some added detail. He indicated that the report was in the new format of showing the quarter-end position and forecasting the outturn position at year-end which was a more meaningful way to report the situation. This particular forecast though was based on an expected trajectory which had been forecast before the lockdown in November and before the latest lockdown so the outturn position was likely to change as costs rose and income fell – it was possible there may be some additional grants from government but nothing had been indicated as yet. Bearing in mind there was strong potential the forecast outturn was likely to rise, the position at quarter two had shown a deficit of £329,000 which, considering everything that had happened, was quite a strong position. The projection combined the impact of COVID-19 with normal activities and funding made available by government. The table shown at Paragraph 5.2 of the report highlighted how the forecast was constructed with the main elements being savings on salaries across the board, but significant within One Legal, additional expenditure on the COVID-19 response and recovery including payments to the leisure centre during closure, waste and recycling services, rough sleepers, increased staff resources and allocation for recovery. As well as the £1.3 million shortfall on income - the main elements being detailed on Page No. 47 of the report; additional business rates retention was being received from the government which meant this year the Council was collecting 100% against retail and hospitality sectors which would not normally be achieved – this helped the Council’s in-year position but manifested into issues in the following year; £1.8 million of additional government funding had been received which included £1.24 million allocated at the end of quarter two as straight COVID-19 funding, together with an assumption of approximately £500,000 which had been recovered through the sales, fees and charges scheme. Paragraph 5.7 of the report detailed expenditure against the original business grants scheme – whilst a further £3 million had been given to the Council for the November lockdown further allocations would be received for the tier structure and now for the third national lockdown period. Paragraph 5.8 summarised the revenue position with caveats at the end of quarter two as described, with an expectation for the deficit to rise in quarters three and four. However, if the deficit remained at this level (around £600,000) it would be an excellent position given the circumstances. The deficit could be covered by the significant collection fund surplus generated by the release of business rates provisions from Virgin Media appeals. The rest of the report detailed capital expenditure and reserves expenditure as at the end of quarter two.

56.7          Accordingly, it was

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

Supporting documents: