Agenda item
Quarterly Performance Report (Q4 2018/19)
- Meeting of Overview and Scrutiny Committee, Thursday, 6th June, 2019 7.30 pm (Item 8.)
- View the background to item 8.
To consider the key service performance indicators for the fourth quarter of 2018/19.
Minutes:
The Committee considered the Quarterly Performance Report for quarter 4 of the year 2018/19.
The report was introduced by the Executive Member for Corporate Direction and Governance, Councillor V. Lewanski. He outlined the Council’s performance from January to March 2019.
Section 1 looked at Key Performance Indicators (KPIs). Of the 15 KPIs reported in this quarter, 9 were on target or within agreed tolerance. Five KPIs were contextual homelessness targets introduced to reflect changes required by the Homelessness Reduction Act (2017). As the impact of the legislation is uncertain, no target was set in 2018/19.
KPI 3 – relating to the government’s target to build a set number of affordable homes completed – was reported as off target at the end of quarter four. The target was 100 and the actual number built was 68. It was identified that achieving this target was largely outside the control of the Council as it was significantly dependent on private developers in a few large sites.
Section 2 on risk management identified no new strategic risks in quarter 4.
Section 3 covered Internal Audits completed in quarter 4 on: GDPR Governance, Governance Arrangements for Property Investment Company, Commercial Governance Framework and Grants Funding.
The Committee considered and discussed the report. There were a number of questions and comments, relating to the following topics:
Section 1 - Key Performance Indicators (KPIs)
· Affordable housing – A number of Members questioned the reasons for the affordable housing target (KPI3) as the Council had limited control over this target which is set in policy. Members felt that this was an arbitrary target as the Council does not have legal powers to force a developer to build affordable housing so in practice there could be zero affordable homes built in one year. It was noted that the Council is committed to increasing the number of affordable homes going forward.
The target of 100 is set in the Council’s Core Strategy which is agreed by the independent Planning Inspectorate. Members expressed a desire to assess this target’s applicability.
It was noted that this topic was discussed at a recent Corporate Plan workshop on the Council’s housing strategy. Members recognised that it could not only rely on private sector developers to build affordable housing. If it wanted to deliver the level of affordable housing it wanted, then working with partners such as Raven Housing Trust would be a way forward.
Members observed that if developers say they cannot afford to build a higher number of affordable homes through their cost and expenses appraisals, the Council should intervene. It should be more critical about developers’ written plans or have an overage (a future payment made to the seller of the land, by the buyer of the land) written into plans. If developers made more money on the sales, then the Council should receive a proportion of this to use to build affordable housing.
The Council regards its aims of delivering affordable homes in this context through shared equity and help to buy schemes, including discounted homes – sold at typically 20 per cent below market value if they are sold – as well as affordable rent-type homes. It was noted that Members on the Planning Committee were working with officers to review this area of work. For example, looking at how developers comply with government regulations, for example on the land values used in viability appraisals.
Members asked if affordable housing targets included houses built by private developer-led schemes as well as those houses built by Raven Housing Trust, for example a Redhill development which included nearly 50 affordable homes, and the Council’s Lee Street development.
Members requested, for future years, that indicators could be broken down so they could see how much affordable housing could be secured in each of these above areas of housing development. This would not just look at private development but signpost the Council’s forthcoming Housing Strategy and also its collaboration with Raven Housing Trust.
It was requested that next year (2020/21) there should be an annual process for Members to scrutinise the Service Delivery indicators to advise if these were set at the right levels each year, in addition to reviewing whether the Council was meeting those targets.
Section 2 – Risk Management
Strategic risk registers
It was noted that this report looked at quarter 4 of 2018/19. A new set of strategic risks for 2019/20 had been reviewed by Members at the 14 March 2019 (Agenda Item 69) meeting of the Committee. Further information on quarter 4 strategic risks would be available shortly on the eMembers portal which set out controls and a list of mitigating actions every quarter.
Members discussed the following areas:
· Partner decisions (Strategic risk 7) – Members asked for more information about mitigating the strategic risk on Partner decisions which was rated as Red. One example given was funding that came from Surrey County Council. The Council received approximately £1m a year from the County Council in its revenue budget to provide services such as family support, recycling and grass cutting. As the County Council was facing a funding crisis an example of mitigating this risk was the dialogue that senior officers had with County Council senior officers to ensure that reasonable funding decisions are made that would not impact negatively on the Borough Council.
Members observed that some partner decisions reflected immediate risks that could impact the current financial year, and were thus rated Red. Other risks like long-term financial sustainability were unlikely to impact this year and for that reason marked as yellow. Although not immediate, the issue was very pertinent to the Council, and therefore careful financial and service planning was needed.
Members noted that Raven Housing Trust Board’s strategic risk register was a good practice model for officers to note.
Operational risks
· Community Centres – It was noted that this operational risk (number 13) was marked Red. This stated that the Council may be required to introduce an alternative delivery model for the Community Centres service, potentially at short notice and at a considerable cost. It may have to be prepared to bring Community Centres back under Council control again.
The Chair said he had discussed this operational risk with the Executive Portfolio Holder, Councillor R. Ashford, who was planning to run a cross-party Member Task Group under his portfolio to start shortly. Committee Members would be able to have input into future planning and delivery of these services.
Section 3 – Internal Audit reports
· It was noted that this included three specialist reviews (set out above) which were advisory and an amber red rating on grants funding which was discussed earlier in the meeting (Agenda Item 4, Annual Internal Audit Report).
There were no further comments.
RESOLVED that:
i. the quarterly performance reports for the fourth quarter of 2018/19 be noted.
ii. the Committee requested that it has the opportunity to review the Key Performance Indicators for service delivery for 2020/21 before they are adopted, and that affordable housing targets are reported by type.
Supporting documents:
- Executive cover note - Q4 performance, item 8. PDF 95 KB
- Front sheet, item 8. PDF 83 KB
- Section 1 - KPIs Q4 18/19, item 8. PDF 48 KB
- Section 2 - risk management Q4 18/19, item 8. PDF 95 KB
- Section 3 - internal audit Q4 18/19, item 8. PDF 51 KB