Issue - meetings

To provide an update on how the Council is performing for the period 1 January 2025 to 31 March 2025  (report of the Assistant Director – Corporate enclosed).

Consideration was given to the report of the Assistant Director – Corporate which provided an update on how the Council was performing for the period 1^st January 2025 to 31^st March 2025.

The Portfolio Holder for Corporate, Governance, Communications and Environmental Services presented the report.

Consideration was given to the report and the following issues were raised:

·         It was noted that at section 3 of the covering report, the Performance Monitoring Panel had requested that in relation to ‘Council run stall occupancy levels’, that trend indicator be a target rather than a trend. 

o   The Portfolio Holder commented that as an Authority, KPIs were reviewed annually and that each Portfolio Holder could assess their own areas.  The Performance Framework was considered by Full Council on an annual basis and this would be the time for any changes to be approved.

DECISION:

That the contents of the report be noted.

(Other options considered:

·         Not to monitor performance – this was not recommended;

Reasons for decision:

·         To ensure Council performance was properly scrutinised).

To provide an update on how the Council is performing for the period 1 January 2025 to 31 March 2025 (report of the Assistant Director – Corporate enclosed).

Consideration was given to the report of the Assistant Director – Corporate which sought to provide an update on how the Council was performing for the period 1^st January 2025 to 31^st March 2025.

The Business Intelligence and Change Manager introduced the report, highlighting the following areas:

• 82% of the Council’s performance indicators were on track with only 9% significantly under target.
• The percentage of household waste collected for recycling and composting had dropped to 28.79% which was significantly under the 45% target set.
• The percentage of corporate complaints responded to within corporately set timescales had dropped to 58.82%, with a target of 95%. Many of the complaints not responded to within the timescale came from one department where new processes had been put into place to drive improvements in response times.
• The percentage of subject requests responded to within statutory timescales had fallen to 66.67% compared to a 100% target.  Improvements had been made to how these requests were dealt with and staff training had taken place.
• The average answer rate – Revenues and Benefits (PSPS) had fallen to 66.76%, short of the 87% target set. Call duration had increased by 116 seconds in comparison to Q4 last year and there had also been a 40% increase in the number of repeat calls received from the same customers. Extended opening hours had been implemented from November to March, with call lines also being extended through annual billing. The customer services summit would discuss the issue going forward and report back to the Panel.

Members considered the report, and made the following comments:

• Members asked that page references were not made in the covering report as these did not match the agenda numbering.
• Members queried when a trend became a target, did this happen after a full year of data was available.
  • The Business Intelligence and Change Manager responded that this was dependent upon the service area concerned and many trends were unsuitable for a target to be in place due to the variability of the data each quarter.
  • Where the Panel felt a trend should be a target, this could be referred back for discussion with the service area.
• Members wished for ‘Council run stall occupancy levels’ to be a target rather than a trend.
• Members asked for further information regarding why the ‘household waste collected for recycling and composting’ indicator had been consistently underperforming.
• Members queried the reference to S113 agreements in the commentary for ‘Percentage of corporate complaints’ indicator and raised concern about the number of staff being shared and what the potential risks and effect on services this would have.
• Members questioned the significant drop in performance relating to the ‘Percentage of subject access requests responded to within statutory timescales’ indicator.
  • The Business Intelligence and Change Manager confirmed that he would provide the Panel with the exact number of requests received as this was likely to be a low number that would then skew the statistics.
• Members appreciated the explanation provided for the reduction  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8