Agenda item

Performance Overview Report – Quarter 1 & 2 2015/16

To provide an update on Council performance for the period 1 April 2015 to 30 September 2015 (report of the Executive Director, Strategy and Governance enclosed)

Minutes:

Consideration was given to the report of the Executive Director, Strategy and Governance, which provided an update on Council performance for the period 1 April 2015 to 30 September 2015.

 

The Quarter 2 Performance Report was attached to the covering report at Appendix A, and provided councillors and residents with information about the Council’s delivery against its Corporate Priorities, and on the Council’s Corporate Health.  The covering report presented a summary of the status of the Council’s key projects and indicators.

 

Areas of success, where performance had improved since the last period (Quarter 1, 2015/16) were also brought to Councillors’ attention, as were areas of concern where performance was below anticipated outcomes or were worsening.  These items were discussed at Performance Board on 22 October 2015 and highlighted to Executive Management Team on 23 November 2015.

 

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

 

·         It would be useful for appendices in future reports to show previous quarter results, in order that councillors could track the trajectory of performance.

o   The Corporate Improvement and Performance Manager agreed that this could be done, and was happy for councillors to provide any suggestions for improvements.

 

·         Councillors asked what the figures in the value and target columns of the Performance Report represented.

o   The Corporate Improvement and Performance Manager advised that the figures represented days.  He confirmed that relevant units could be added, where appropriate, on future reports.

 

·         The Panel had been advised that when a property became void, if there was any asbestos in it, the opportunity was taken to use the vacant period to remove it from the property.  Void data had not been performing well for a while therefore, was asbestos removal the only reason for poor performance?

o   The Shared Executive Director Place advised that this was the main reason for poor performance.  Small, routine work was often held up by the presence of asbestos in properties, and the decision had therefore been taken to programme asbestos removal work during void periods.  Unfortunately, this had impacted upon performance in this area and officers had been requested to investigate ways of speeding up the process.

 

·         How many properties required removal of asbestos?

o   The Shared Executive Director Place advised that he would obtain this information and advise Panel members.

 

·         Were the contractors currently being used to remove asbestos taking longer than necessary to complete their work?

o   The Shared Executive Director Place advised that the Authority was currently in the process of identifying a new contractor to undertake these works. 

 

·         Performance in relation to housing re-lets was poor, was there anything that the Panel could do to assist? 

o   The Chairman commented that it was the Panel’s job to monitor performance, and that if performance had not improved by Quarter 3, the issue should be pursued.  He stated that improvement would be expected by the next quarter.

o   The Shared Executive Director Place stated that performance was not satisfactory.  The Authority was attempting to turn this around, and that this issue would be brought back to the Panel if there was no improvement by the next quarter.

 

·         In respect of the Housing Benefit LA Error Rate, were the figures down to incorrect payments?  Did officers have any more details regarding this?

o   The Shared Executive Director Place advised that he would obtain this information and advise Panel members.

 

·         There were many performance indicators with a status of green.  Councillors commented that managers responsible for the good performance should be congratulated.

 

·         The name of the Portfolio Holder for the performance indicators ‘Percentage of household waste recycled or composted’, ‘Missed Collect Rate’ and ‘Waste sent to ‘Energy from Waste’ per Household’  should be amended from Councillor M Chandler to Councillor R Gambba-Jones.

 

·         Although the performance indicator ‘Average Wait Time in Seconds’ was being met, it was felt that the indicator may not reflect areas of unsatisfactory performance.  This information should be looked at and a way found of reflecting the impact of these areas and how a true picture of the situation could be represented.

 

AGREED:

 

a)    That the report of the Executive Director, Strategy and Governance be noted;

 

b)    That the following amendments be made to presentation of information on the Performance Overview Report to the Performance Monitoring Panel;

 

              i.        Provide details of previous quarter results to enable Councillors to track trajectory of performance;

            ii.        Add units used for each performance indicator e.g. under Housing re-let (void) time, specify ‘days’ in the value and target columns;

           iii.        Some performance indicators did not reflect the whole picture e.g. Average Wait Time in Seconds (for those calls not answered within the target time, a way had to be found of reflecting the impact of this and how a true picture of the situation could be given).

           iv.        The name of the Portfolio Holder for the performance indicators ‘Percentage of household waste recycled or composted’, ‘Missed Collect Rate’ and ‘Waste sent to ‘Energy from Waste’ per Household’  should be amended from Councillor M Chandler to Councillor R Gambba-Jones.

 

c)    That the following information arising out of the discussion be provided to the Panel;

 

              i.        The number of properties that still required removal of asbestos (in relation to housing re-let (void) time indicator;

            ii.        Housing Benefit LA Error Rate – More detail required on what constituted the errors;

           iii.        Average Wait Time in Seconds – Information to be provided on calls not picked up within the target time

 

d)    That the poor performance relating to housing re-let (void) time be noted, that the Panel expected improved performance to be reflected in the Quarter 3 report, and that if no improvement was seen, the Panel would expect to receive information on why this was the case.

 

(The Corporate Improvement and Performance Manager and the Business Intelligence Officer left the meeting following discussion of the above item).

Supporting documents: