Link to homepage

Agenda item

Council Plan Performance Tracker and COVID-19 Recovery Tracker - Quarter Two 2021/22

To receive and respond to the findings of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee‘s review of the quarter two performance management and recovery information. 

Subject To Call In::No - Item to Note.

Decision:

That the findings of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee’s review of the quarter two performance management and recovery information be NOTED.  

Minutes:

83.1           The report of the Chair of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee, circulated at Pages No. 15-108, asked Members to review and, if appropriate, take action on the observations of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee following its review of the Quarter Two 2021/22 Council Plan performance tracker and COVID-19 recovery tracker information.

83.2           The Chair of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee explained that the review of the performance information at the meeting had covered several areas rather than focussing in depth on one particular area. The main things to bring to the attention of the Executive Committee were the Joint Core Strategy (JCS) – Members had asked the reason for appointing Deloitte, where the budget came from, the scope of the work and how it had been authorised - the Head of Development Services had provided a detailed response; the Planning Improvement Plan – Members had questioned the progress made and the Head of Development Services had indicated that there were many problems to solve and, whilst there would be some quick fixes, the plan needed to be realistic and it was likely to be 12-24 months before any major improvements were noticeable; Freedom of Information requests - the Head of Corporate Services had given assurances they were dealt with in a timely manner and the Committee had requested a further breakdown of response rates in service areas; local list of non-designated heritage assets - the Committee had questioned the weight associated with planning permissions, along with the format of the Panel that approved the list, and had been advised that the composition of the Panel was yet to be decided. Members had further questioned if they would be involved and whether the postholder contracted to undertake the work would be able to provide full input before the contract ended; fly-tipping - Members had been told this was decreasing but Ubico had specified an overspend in the fly-tipping budget so officers had been asked for clarification. There had also been a discussion about whether the booking system still being used for the household recycling centres was contributing to the problem but Officers felt it was not; and the Welcome Back Fund - some Members had indicated they had seen little evidence of the fund being spent in their area and had been advised that local Members and Parishes had been contacted for ideas which were being worked through prior to being communicated to Members. The Chair felt that, overall, the picture was positive despite the ongoing challenge of the pandemic. He also advised that an external training facilitator had observed the meeting and was complimentary about the Committee’s operation and had been positive about the format of the performance report.

83.3           The Head of Corporate Services advised that the Officer responses to outstanding items may generate some additional work but the report had been positive and it was good to have gained compliments on the way Members had interacted at the meeting and the set-up of the report. At the subsequent training session with the external training facilitator, the interaction between the Overview and Scrutiny and Executive Committees had been discussed and Members were reminded that they should look at the Forward Plan and identify anything they wanted the Overview and Scrutiny Committee to look at in depth.

83.4           During the discussion which ensued, there were some concerns raised about the ongoing use of the booking system at the household recycling centres. Members were reminded this was a County Council decision and it had been decided to continue with online bookings as many people liked the system and found it easier to get onto the site with their waste than when it was run on a first come, first served basis. The Chair of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee explained that the Committee had asked for the costs associated with disposal of fly-tips so some further consideration would be given to the issues raised.

83.5           Accordingly, it was

Supporting documents: