Agenda and minutes

Performance Monitoring Panel - Wednesday, 11th September, 2019 6.30 pm

Venue: Meeting Room 1, Council Offices, Priory Road, Spalding

Contact: Democratic Services  01775 764626

No. Item


Declaration of Interests.

Where a Councillor has a Disclosable Pecuniary Interest the Councillor must declare the interest to the meeting and leave the room without participating in any discussion or making a statement on the item, except where a councillor is permitted to remain as a result of a grant of dispensation.


There were none.


Crime and Disorder

As requested by the Panel at its last meeting, Inspector Gareth Boxall will be in attendance to answer questions raised during the Crime and Disorder Partnership update.


At the last meeting of the Performance Monitoring Panel, a Crime and Disorder update had been received where a number of issues had been raised.  The Panel had requested that the Police Inspector and the Member of Parliament be requested to attend the meeting.  Sir John Hayes, MP was not able to attend however, Inspector Gareth Boxall was in attendance, and the Chairman welcomed him to the meeting.


The Panel raised a number of issues, and Inspector Boxall responded, as detailed below:


·         What was the difference between a Public Order Disturbance and Anti Social Behaviour?

o   Inspector Boxall responded that a Public Order Disturbance was an offence against the Public Order Act, which could involve anything from disorderly conduct through to a riot. Anti Social Behaviour was a far wider area and could encompass many things.  There were differing methods in which the two could be dealt with.  Criminal offences could be dealt with through the court, and the Anti Social Behaviour Act gave powers to deal with Anti Social Behaviour (this replaced the previous Anti Social Behaviour Orders), and dealt with behaviour that fell below a public order disturbance but which caused offence.


·         Several parish councils had expressed dissatisfaction with support provided from the Police.  Did the Inspector feel this was because the Lincolnshire force was under funded?

o   Inspector Boxall commented that the Lincolnshire police force was underfunded, and that the Chief Constable was on record as saying that it was poorly funded.  The area did not have the same problems as urban areas however, there were still particular problems to be faced in rural areas.  All forces now faced problems of crime developing in different ways, and emerging crime types such as cyber crime and internet fraud, whereas in the past, crime followed a more traditional route.


·         A constant complaint from the public was that they did not see many police officer on the beat – was this because they were being taken off the beat to deal with more specialist crime?

o   Inspector Boxall stated that there were many reasons for there being less police on the beat, but that specialisms in particular areas was only one reason for this.  Overall, police officers having specialisms in a particular area was a good way of dealing with crime.


·         The Lincolnshire Police force had been under funded for a long time, and the situation was not improving.  It should at least have the same level of funding as other forces. 

o   Inspector Boxall replied that there would never be enough money as policing covered so many aspects – as well as carrying out investigations,  preventative work also needed to be undertaken.  However, the Panel was advised that the Chief Constable was pushing for a fairer funding formula, and that the extra police recently promised by the government would help.  The Chief Constable had spoken about preparing for around 350-400  over the next few years, and the Inspector would be making representations to ensure that this area received a  ...  view the full minutes text for item 15.


Minutes pdf icon PDF 110 KB

To sign as a correct record the minutes of the meeting of the Performance Monitoring Panel held on 18 June 2019 (copy enclosed).


Consideration was given to the minutes of the meeting of the Performance Monitoring Panel held on 18 June 2019.




That the minutes be signed as a correct record.


Questions asked under Standing Order 6


There were none.


Tracking of Recommendations

To consider responses of the Cabinet to reports of the Panel.


There were none.


Items referred from the Policy Development Panel.


There were none.


Key Decision Plan pdf icon PDF 150 KB

To note the current Key Decision Plan


Consideration was given to the Key Decision Plan issued on 9 August 2019.


Members commented that some items on the Planner showed a ‘not before’ date for the decision to be made.  It was clarified that this was to ensure that a decision was not made before it had been advertised on the planner for the required amount of time.  Members requested that in future, the planner show an anticipated date that each decision would be made.




That the Key Decision Plan issues on 9 August 2019 be noted.


Performance Overview Report - Quarter 1 2019/20 pdf icon PDF 80 KB

To provide an update on how the Council is performing for the period 1st April 2019 to 30 June 2019 (Report of Portfolio Holder – Governance and Customer enclosed)

Additional documents:


Consideration was given to the report of the Portfolio Holder for Governance and Customer which provided an update on how the Council was performing for the period.


Appended to the report was a revised Performance Overview report.  The report had been revised to provide better detail and more context on how the Council was performing, and how performance and service delivery linked into the Council’s key corporate priorities.  The re-design of the report was also driven by the Council’s business intelligence agenda, to ensure that the data and information held was used to drive service delivery and key decisions.  To tie in with this strategy, the report also included supporting intelligence and data such as comparisons against other similar councils, where possible, as well as the addition of forecasted performance, which was informed by trend and business intelligence analysis. 


The Panel considered the report, and the following issues were raised:


·         It was good to see an overall improvement, which made up the vast majority of indicators.  However, performance with regard to fly tipping was disappointing, and many members were very unhappy about this.  Where an incident could not be cleared within the required timeframe, what action was being taken, and were the current providers of the service satisfactory? 

o   Officers responded that not all issues were due to staff availability, and that sometimes problems arose due to difficulties in identifying location.  The  current service was being provided at a reduced cost, and consideration was being given to the cost of bringing fly tipping collections in house.  The Street Scene and Pride teams were looking at picking up issues that the current provider could not deal with. 

·         Members responded that the website had improved, and that hopefully this should show improvements, and that the next report would reflect this.                              


·         Members commented that some of the ‘same period last year’ data did not match up to the visual graphs, and it was agreed that officers would correct this information.


·         Section 3.3 of the covering report provided reasons for poor performance, and provided details on seasonal trends around bringing properties back into use.  However, information provided further on was contradictory.

o   Officers agreed that the information provided was contradictory, and that more information on seasonal trends was required.

·         Members also stated that statistics around empty properties also appeared to be contradictory.

o   Officers responded that empty homes was an annual national indicator and needed to be recognised within the data.  The Policy Development Panel was already considering issues around empty homes. 


·         Members raised the issue of complaints, and how this information was used?  If the problem was a service issue, this was a complaint.  It was therefore necessary to differentiate between service issues and formal complaints, and supporting information was therefore required.

o   Officers responded that service issues were raised individually be each area, that he would find out the information required and formulate it as a performance issue. 


·         The report stated that there had been two complaints where  ...  view the full minutes text for item 21.


Public Toilet Task and Finish Group Update pdf icon PDF 158 KB

To provide an update on the progress of the Public Toilet Task and Finish Group recommendations reported in January 2019 (Report of Portfolio Holder for Place and Executive Director – Place enclosed)

Additional documents:


Consideration was given to the report of the Portfolio Holder for Place and the Executive Director Place which provided an update on the progress of the public toilet task and finish group recommendations reported in January 2019.


Since the recommendations of the Task Group were agreed by the Cabinet in February 2019, there had been a number of improvements made to the process of reporting issues and repairs, increased and improved cleaning schedules, and research into how best to continue to provide good quality public toilets to the residents of, and visitors to, South Holland.


In order to fully consider the best options for the future provision of the toilets, a consultation was undertaken on what should  be available, and the current usage of the toilets.  Despite improved cleaning of the facilities, respondents still felt that cleanliness was lacking, and that the toilets attracted anti-social behaviour.  As a result of this feedback, a number of options were detailed within the report as potential ways of improving toilet provision, with option 2 (to re-configure the current buildings) being the recommended option. 


Members considered the report, and the following issues were raised:


·         Councillor McLean commented that as an Executive Support member, he had had involvement with this project and was pleased with the information produced within the report.


·         The facilities in Crowland were not mentioned within the report – was there an intention to improve these?

o   Officers responded that the facilities in Spalding and Holbeach would be addressed first as there was possible funding available for those towns.  The facilities in Crowland would be looked at as part of the 5 year capital programme, where all facilities  would be considered as part of the priority of the stock condition surveys.


·         The report stated that the anticipated completion date for the programme was 2025 – members hoped that improvements could be undertaken within a shorter timeframe and pointed out that this would then reduce the time for which the current issues, such as vandalism, would have to be dealt with.

o   Officers replied that the date of 2025 had been a recommendation from the Task Group.  There was a 5 year programme of work to understand however, after structural reviews had been undertaken, a programme of work could then be prioritised.  As long as money continued to be available from the Pride initiative, deep cleans could continue, but the officer was in agreement that a shorter time frame for undertaking the improvements suggested would help reduce the need for this.

·         Members responded that public toilet provision was a reputational issue, and that it was important to find funding to assist with improvements.




a)    That the contents of the report be noted;


b)    That the report be presented to Cabinet to recommend the option to re-configure the toilets and provision of toilets in South Holland; and


c)    That following consideration of the report by the Cabinet, an update be provided to the next meeting of the Performance Monitoring Panel.


Swimming Pool & Leisure Facilities Task Group Update pdf icon PDF 121 KB

To provide Members with an update to ensure positive trends are continuing (Report of Executive Director – Place enclosed)


Consideration was given to the report of the Executive Director Place, which provided members with an update on the Swimming Pool and Leisure Facilities Task Group, to ensure that positive trends were continuing. 


The Panel had received a six-monthly update at its last meeting, and had requested a further report to this meeting to ensure that the improved trends had continued, following the change in contract provider.


The report provided information on the continued improvement in trends - improved customer feedback; increase in usage of 3%; continuous month on month figures at the Castle Swimming Pool; the sauna had been renovated and was now open again; and there had been no closures of the swimming pool due to staff availability.  Officers were continuing to monitor the contract, and an audit of leisure contract management was due to be undertaken.


Members considered the information, and the following issues were raised:


·         Members commented that the level of feedback still seemed very low when compared with the number of users.  In addition, when using the facility, there had been no clear evidence of comment card, or that verbal feedback was noted.

o   Officers advised that they would feed this information back to the contractor


·         The report provided no feedback on the indoor bowls club.

o   Officers advised that information on all sites would be provided within the next update.


·         Members stated that it was important that regular inspection visits were undertaken, and that the contractor was not aware of these dates beforehand.  Could the Panel be provided with a list of dates in that past that inspections had taken place, to ensure that there was no pattern to the visits, and that visits were taking place.

o   Officers confirmed that inspection were taking and place, and that they were staggered.  The information requested would be provided as part of the next update.


·         Could newer technology (tablet/iPad) be used to provide feedback?  Feedback forms could be custom built to gain useful data to inform the way ahead. 

o   Officers responded that they would take this suggestion back to the contractor however, it was there decision as to how they obtained data and the Authority could only suggest ideas.


·         When the new contract had been agreed, members had been advised that it  would be cost neutral and financially beneficial to the Council – when would information supporting this be available?

o   Officers advised that the contract had currently been running for six months, and that the information requested could be provided after the contract had run for about a year.


·         Members were now aware that the leisure facilities had not been left in a suitable state by previous contractor – why had the Authority not been aware of this before they had left the site.  A report on this issue was requested for a future meeting.

o   Officers replied that work on the dilapidation schedule was progressing, but that this work would continue for some time.  Information around this  ...  view the full minutes text for item 23.


Economic Development and Inward Investment update pdf icon PDF 98 KB

To provide an update to Performance Monitoring Panel on how Economic Development and Inward Investment is undertaken and promoted in South Holland (Report of Executive Director Commercialisation and Section 151 Officer – to follow)



Additional documents:


Consideration was given to the report of the Executive Director Commercialisation which provided an update on how Economic Development and Inward Investment was undertaken and promoted in South Holland.  The report provided a further update on the following work streams:


·         Update on relationship with Opportunity Peterborough (the Economic Action Plan was attached as an appendix to the report)

·         Business Engagement

·         Key Employment Sites

·         Inward Investment

·         Skills

·         Grants4growth

·         Strategic Engagement


The Panel considered the report, and the following issues were raised:


·         Members requested that future update reports provide an executive summary at the start of the report, summarising the main headlines, prior to the fuller explanation.  


·         Members commented that much of the emphasis detailed within the report related to Spalding and Holbeach – was there any activity in the rest of the district?

o   Officers advised that planning permission was being considered for more units at the industrial estate at Crease Drove, that officers were working closely with Crowland Cranes, and links were being developed with port at Sutton Bridge.  Most sites were based in Spalding and Holbeach, but officers were happy to work with all businesses, wherever they were in the district.




a)    That the report be noted; and


b)    That a further update report be provided to the Panel in six months time, on 18 March 2020.


Performance Monitoring Panel Work Programme pdf icon PDF 61 KB

To set out the Work Programme of the Performance Monitoring Panel  (report

of the Executive Manager Governance (Deputy Monitoring Officer) enclosed).


Additional documents:


Consideration was given to the report of the Executive Manager Governance, which set out the Work Programme of the Performance Monitoring Panel.  The Work Programme consisted of two separate sections, the first setting out the dates of the future Panel meetings along with proposed items for consideration, and the second setting out the Task Groups that had been identified by the Panel.



That the Work Programme provided by the Executive Manager Governance be noted.


Any other items which the Chairman decides are urgent



NOTE:            No other business is permitted unless by reason of special circumstances, which shall be specified in the minutes, the Chairman is of the opinion that the item(s) should be considered as a matter of urgency.


Members commented that the recent review of implemented planning decisions had been very useful, and requested that their thanks be passed on to the Planning and Building Control Manager and the Planning Policy Officer, who had undertaken the tour with them.