Agenda item

Corporate Plan Performance Report - Q4 2022-23

Minutes:

Councillor Penberthy (Cabinet Member for Housing, Co-operative Development and Communities) and Ross Jago (Head of Governance, Performance and Risk) presented the Corporate Plan Performance Report Q4 2022-23 and highlighted the following key points:

 

(a)

Performance was an area that was scrutinised by all of the scrutiny panels, however the Performance, Finance and Customer Focus Overview and Scrutiny Committee panel had the responsibility for the overarching performance framework for the Council;

 

(b)

this was the fourth and final report for the last financial year and was therefore the previous administrations report on the corporate plan – the report covered the period January to March 2023;

 

(c)

the work undertaken with SME (small to medium enterprises) within the PL postcode to boost local economy was positive and figures were continuing to grow;

 

(d)

there was a consistent reduction in repeat referrals to children’s social care;

 

(e)

business rate collection had increased to 99%;

 

(f)

there were still some performance challenges that would be prioritised as a new administration, including:

 

 

·          

the percentage of household waste sent to recycling, reuse or composting had seen a significant reduction over the past year. The downward trend from the previous year showed the Council was 8% shy of its target;

 

 

·          

the city survey showed that during 2022 there was a reduction in the percentage of people who believed that their area was a place where people from different backgrounds could get on well together – in 2021 there was a high of 55% but now dropped to 42% in 2022;

 

(g)

the corporate plan on page 35 of the agenda pack was not the Council’s corporate plan any longer as it had been replaced; the new administration would revisit what the performance framework looked like and would mirror the five plus two: the five priorities and the two sections on growing up and growing old well in the city. Officers would undertake work to benchmark against other authorities’ performance;

 

(h)

there was a new Government office that had been launched in last few weeks, namely the Office of Local Government; it was launched as a new local government performance body and was part of the Department of Levelling Up, Housing and Communities. It had three strategic objectives: to empower citizens with further information about their local authority, secondly to build on local leaders and councils knowledge of their services, and thirdly to increase central government’s understanding of local government performance highlighting excellence and identifying risks of failure to facilitate timely support. The new data comparator tool had recently published data covering adult social care, adult skills, waste management and local authority finances;

 

(i)

the government department had also launched a consultation into new statutory guidance of what constituted best value and the standards that local authorities were expected to meet by Government and residents – that was due to close on 15 August.

 

In response to questions raised it was reported that –

 

(j)

in terms of the increase in full time equivalent work days lost to staff sickness it was acknowledged that this was a worrying increase; it was expected that this was generally due to a small number of staff that were on long term sick. The Council’s corporate management team had discussed this issue and with the arrival of the new interim Service Director for HR, she was keen to change the emphasis away from managing absence to managing attendance. It was confirmed that Councillor Dann would be approached to provide a written response to that question and this would be provided to Members;

 

(k)

the downward trend in percentage of people who believed that their area was a place where people from different backgrounds could get on well together was considered to be because a whole variety of reasons. Work was to be undertaken to assess the ward analysis to accompany this data. It was hoped that work relating to the welcoming city programme would be submitted to the scrutiny panel in the future for pre-decision scrutiny;

 

(l)

with regards to the downward trend of data linked to residents that felt safe during the day, this was the responsibility of Councillor Haydon and the Community Safety Partnership. Scrutiny had previously asked the CSP into scrutiny to talk about crime – it was suggested that it might be helpful to invite them to a future meeting for a deep dive into the feeling of safety;

(m)

with regards to the red risk rating and decline in data linked to ‘engaging with and listening to our residents, businesses and communities, and how to get involved’, as well as the data linked to ‘providing a quality service to get the basics right first time and stage one complaints’, it was considered that this was because in the last six months of the last municipal year there was considered to be a major controversy in the city where people felt they weren’t involved, weren’t engaged and were ignored. That meant that during that period, the Council received a substantial increase in the number of FOI requests and data requests – it was hoped that these indicators were specifically linked to an episode in time. It was a priority for the administration to rebuild the Council’s reputation;

 

(n)

the Cabinet Member for Environment and Climate Change would provide a written response to the Committee upon the reasoning behind the substantial decrease in the amount of household waste sent for recycling, reuse or composting;

 

(o)

the Cabinet Member for Environment and Climate Change would provide a written response to the Committee as to why the Council’s recycling rates were well below the median in comparison to other local authorities as well as an update on food composting;

 

(p)

the 12 community builders were contracted out by the Council, and covered communities as well as communities of identity. In some areas of the city it was considered to be working well, however in other areas, not so well. This was covered by health funding and work was ongoing as to how the Council could help community builders to deliver on the corporate plan and health inequalities – once done the Cabinet Member for Housing, Co-operative Development and Communities would be happy to come back to scrutiny setting out plans for future work and how it would be scrutinised. A specific piece of work linked to community builders linked to the development of food cooperatives;

 

(q)

as part of the induction programme for Councillors, a generic briefing on Community Builders was created;

 

(r)

data that relied upon the city survey for its information was taken every two years; it depended upon the key performance indicator as to the frequency of information;

 

(s)

It was highlighted that the new format of the corporate plan moving forwards would include key narrative around performance data; in a move to aid better scrutinise, it was suggested that Members of the Committee sent the Democratic Advisor questions prior to the committee meeting so that responses could be sought and provided at the meeting;

 

(t)

staff absence and details regarding that, the approach of the new Strategic Director for HR for staff absence and more detailed information upon this subject would benefit from being discussed as part of an agenda item, other than a written response to a question.

 

 

The Committee agreed that

 

1.

the Cabinet Member for Customer Services, Sport, Leisure and HR & OD would provide a written response to the Committee detailing the reasoning behind the increase in full time equivalent work days lost to staff sickness and what steps were being taken to tackle this issue;

 

2.

the Cabinet Member for Community Safety, Libraries, Cemeteries and Cremation would provide a written response to the Committee upon reasoning behind the downward trend of data linked to residents that felt safe during the day in the city;

 

3.

the Cabinet Member for Environment and Climate Change would provide a written response to the Committee upon the reasoning behind the substantial decrease in the amount of household waste sent for recycling, reuse or composting; a response would also be provided as to why the Council’s recycling rates were well below the median in comparison to other local authorities as well as an update on food composting and the Council’s plans;

 

4.

that Community Builders would be added to the Committee’s work programme;

 

5.

that staff absence would be added to the Committee’s work programme, detailing a breakdown of short term and long term absence, a breakdown of gender and age, and what work the Council could do to support staff, specifically with regards t their mental health and stopping the potential stigma attached to taking short term ‘mental health days’;

 

6.

the response to the consultation (regarding statutory guidance on what constituted best value and the standards that local authorities were expected to meet) is delegated to the lead officer for the Committee, the Cabinet Member for Housing, Co-operative Development and Communities, Councillor Darcy as Chair and Councillor Goslin as Vice Chair;

 

7.

the Performance, Finance and Customer Focus Overview and Scrutiny Committee notes the Corporate Plan Quarter Four 2022/23 Performance Report.

 

 

 

 

 

Supporting documents: