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 April
2024 to 30 June 2024.
The Portfolio Holder for
Corporate and Communications presented the report and the following
issues were raised:
·
There was a heavy reliance on PSPS – what
training did their staff receive and how was this monitored and
controlled?
- The Portfolio Holder
– Corporate and Communications advised that all staff
undertook a structured training programme, there was a
‘buddy’ system in place, and team leaders would
periodically review and monitor calls.
Calls were recorded so, should any issues be raised by the public,
they could be referred to and learning taken from them. SHDC did not monitor specifically but performance
could be seen through KPIs and monitoring reports.
·
Was the target for the KPI ‘Percentage of
corporate complaints responded to within corporately set
timescales’ too ambitious?
- The Portfolio Holder
– Corporate and Communications advised that the targets had
been reduced slightly. Additionally,
there had been some staffing changes and a service review was also
due which would result in a change to how work was undertaken
within the team. He had seen the
results for Quarter 2, and the performance around complaints and
FOIs had improved.
·
Performance against the KPI ‘Percentage of
subject requests responded to within statutory timescales had also
underperformed – what was the reason for this?
- The Portfolio Holder
– Corporate and Communications advised that this target had
also been reduced slightly, and that the workload was dealt with by
the same team that dealt with corporate complaints. He advised that
the Governance and Audit Committee was considering a report the
following week that contained further information on this
area. This would be shared and would
provide further information on the type of requests whilst also
showing the improving performance trajectory.
·
The Performance Monitoring Panel also considered the
report prior to the Cabinet – how could findings from both
committees come together to benefit the Authority?
- The Portfolio Holder
– Corporate and Communications stated that if any contentious
issues were raised by the Performance Monitoring Panel he was
alerted, and if any issues related to areas within his Portfolio,
he would pursue these.
- The Leader also
requested that future reports reflect better alignment between the
two committees, reflecting back feedback from the Performance
Monitoring Panel in order that more focus could be given by Cabinet
to the issues raised.
·
For two Environment KPIs – ‘Percentage
of household waste collected for recycling and composting’
and ‘Percentage of recycling collected that is unable to be
recycled (contamination)’, data was not available, and it was
stated that data was recorded by LCC by Waste Transfer Station
rather than by the Council, and that this had been raised at the
Lincolnshire Waste Partnership.
Pressure should be applied to outside bodies to provide the
required information more quickly.
- The Portfolio Holder
– Corporate and Communications replied that because the
performance framework had changed, data was sometimes not
available. The Communications Teams often undertook campaigns on
social media and in the local paper advising which waste items to
place in specific bags.
- The Assistant
Director – Corporate explained that the reason these metrics
were included was because OffLog (the new watchdog formed by the
previous government) would be monitoring them in the
future. Some indicators, such as these
were currently missing data however, officers were working hard
with the Lincolnshire Waste Partnership to ensure that the
information was received in a timely manner moving forward, to feed
into the performance framework.
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).