Agenda item

To consider the Performance Report for Quarter 1 (2019/20) and to make any observations.

Members considered the key service performance for the first quarter of the year (2019/20).

The Executive Member for Corporate Direction and Governance, Councillor V. Lewanski, outlined the main findings from the quarterly report. In summary, 10 of the 14 Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) reported in this quarter were on target. Two of the KPIs were outside the agreed tolerance level: KPI 2 –Total number of residential completions and KPI 14 – Percentage of household waste that is recycled and composted.

One indicator (KPI 4) was contextual. This tracked the number of individuals/households that approached the Council for homelessness support and as this was a figure outside the direct control of the Council no target could be set.  KPI 1 (Maintain levels of self-service transaction) could not be reported on due to a combination of factors, including a back office systems upgrade.

In the first quarter of 2019/20, KPI 2 (residential completions) showed that there were 66 completions out of a target of 115. The low completions this quarter reflected the phasing of some major developments which results in an uneven distribution of housing completions throughout the year.  It also noted as a comparison that in 2018/19 as a whole, the target of 460 residential completions had been exceeded, 515 having been completed. It was further noted that KPI 3 – (Number of affordable homes) was ahead of target for this quarter out of a target of 25 affordable homes, the Council had completed 37 which was ahead of target.

On KPI 14, the percentage of household waste that had been recycled and composted was 51.6 per cent, in comparison with the new “stretch” target of 57 per cent. Performance had increased despite a reduction in garden waste resulting from dry growing conditions early in the year. Current indications showed that mixed recycling tonnages would increase due to an additional 1,900 flats now receiving enhanced kerbside recycling collections. 

There were no new strategic risks identified in Quarter 1. A general risk management update is not provided in Quarter 1, however it was appropriate for an update to be provided on the strategic risk concerning Brexit. It was noted that as the 31 October exit date from Europe approached, the Council has appointed a Brexit Lead Officer who is coordinating the Council’s preparations and a Lead Member, Councillor T. Schofield.

There were a number of questions and comments on the report relating to the following areas:

·       Review of KPIs and residential completions – Members asked for an update on the review of Key Performance Indicators. It was identified that a new set of indicators would be produced for the Committee in December/January. This would include reviewing indicators such as the number of residential completions which the Council could not significantly control or influence. While it was not felt to be a helpful measurement to show what the Borough itself was delivering, it was vital to monitor given the Core Strategy new homes target. In view of this, Members were surprised that permissions commenced but not yet completed were not tracked more closely, at least on an overall basis. However, it was noted that this was outside the control of the Council; developers set the timetable for their developments.

·       Corporate Plan 2020-25 – Members asked if the Corporate Plan 2020-25 was an opportunity to change the scope of KPIs as the current reporting system could not articulate all the work that the Council was doing. It was identified that performance measures were useful for communicating to residents the positive work the Council was doing as well as letting them know how it was doing and how money was being spent. Performance measures could cover a wide range of subjects that residents were interested in such as green spaces.

The Chair confirmed that the Committee scrutinises an annual report on measures in the Corporate Plan which it would continue to do. Certain items should be added as they were very important to residents, such as road sweeping and verge cutting and Members were often asked about these issues by residents.

The Executive Member for Corporate Direction and Governance confirmed that the new set of indicators would be mapped to the Corporate Plan.

·       Recycled and composted household waste

Members said the Council should be commended that the Council had nearly achieved the 57 per cent target which was up from 47 per cent the previous year.

It was noted that the advent of the garden waste scheme had led to a reduction in bonfires. However, there had been reports of recent increases in bonfires as garden waste subscription charges had gone up. The Executive Member confirmed that the reduction in garden waste tonnage was mainly due to the exceptionally dry growing conditions early in the year when residents were not recycling what was expected. The number of subscribers to the garden waste scheme had not decreased.

Members identified that garden waste scheme charges were thought to be high compared to other Surrey councils. The latest figures on how the charges compared across the county would be provided for the Committee.

Members suggested that the Council could look at the take up per household of the garden waste system rather than measure the waste tonnages and look at how to make improvements to the service. It was queried whether the target of 57 per cent was set before the expected roll-out to flats and, if so, was it too low and what were the projections on recycling waste following the flats rollout? It was suggested that other areas to look at to help achieve the target were: the impact of the garden waste service, contamination rates, and extension of the full recycling service to all properties.

Officers would review the target with relevant Heads of Service and give a written response to the Committee.

The Chief Executive encouraged Members to take an active part in the review of KPIs and set out what they wanted to see as updated performance indicators to measure the work of the Council. It was agreed that structured feedback to develop this work was important.

Revenue and Capital Budget monitoring

The Executive Member for Finance, Councillor T. Schofield, introduced the headline performance information for Quarter 1 (2019-20) on Revenue budget monitoring and Capital budget monitoring.

·       The Revenue budget was currently forecast to have an underspend of £774.4k compared to budget. On the positive side Refuse and Recycling income was forecast to be £665k higher than budget due to paper recycling and a higher than expected take-up of garden waste subscriptions. Senior Management Team costs were £250k lower than budget due to vacant positions. On the negative side, the costs for running the Harlequin were £74k higher than budget due an income shortfall (partly due to the delay in the cinema refurbishment) and higher staff costs. The Finance team had a £177k forecast overspend due to increased use of agency staff and recruitment costs following the team restructure earlier this year.
 

·       The Capital budget was broadly on track with a projected underspend of £74k. Following last year’s building surveys, the Council needed to increase investment in its building stock. The highest priority schemes had been identified. Some of these could be covered within the existing budget but cost pressures may require allocation of an additional £340k later in the year. The Handy Person Scheme which was used as part of the Council’s housing assistance programme would also require an additional £50k. Members asked that officers consider providing more supporting detail within the main body of the report in future to aid their interpretation of the summary position.

RESOLVED ­–that the Performance Report for Quarter 1 2019/20 financial year and the comments of the Committee be noted.