Agenda item

Report of the Corporate Director (Resources, Environment and Cultural Services) sets out the key performance indicator data collected for those services that fall within its remit. It provides Quarter 1 along with comparative information where possible.

Report of the Corporate Director (Resources, Environment and Cultural Services) set out the key performance indicator data collected for those services that fell within its remit. It provided Quarter 1 along with comparative information where possible.

The report enabled the Committee to identify which Council services were improving, not improving or remaining the same in their key performance areas. Service team comments were also included to explain the performance shown, along with any further action needed.

The Committee noted that a new performance management system called Clearview was now producing performance reports so information was presented differently from before.

Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) highlighted in green were for those that had met or exceeded the target, amber for those that had reached the target within tolerance and red for those that had failed to reach the target.

All KPIs were achieved except for KPI 58 – “The percentage of minor and other planning appeals allowed against the Council’s decision as a percentage of the total number of planning appeals against refusals of planning applications”

A discussion followed regarding the following KPIs:

KPI 18 - The percentage of household waste collected and sent for reuse, recycling and composting

The target was met and Officers clarified that the annual target was lower (44%) than the quarterly target (48%) because they had profiled the target on a quarterly basis due to seasonal changes.

Members were concerned that performance was plateauing and that real progress was required.  Officers advised that Urbaser, the new streetscene contractor, was starting in 2020.  Urbaser would be collecting food waste as well as doing kerbside collections of materials such as small WEE and such changes could bring about an increase in the recycling rate.

KPI 23 - The completion rate of all tree maintenance work within the planned programme

The target was met however Members were concerned about trees blocking street lights and the presence of epicormic growth or “suckers” (growth from dormant buds along the trunk of trees) that had not been removed for years.  Members asked that a report from the Tree Officers be presented to the Committee.  The Corporate Director (Public Protection, Planning and Governance) agreed that a presentation from Tree Officers on their work including tree maintenance, suckers, street light blocking and false acacias would be brought to the next meeting.

KPI 42 The number of Operation Reprise incidents that required a visit and were attended

The target was met and Officers clarified that the 85% target was not due to lack of service provision, but that they could receive three calls in the same shift on the same issue. Additionally by the end of the shift the issue might have resolved itself.   Members asked that the next report on KPIs made it clear that this was the case.

KPI 58 - The percentage of minor and other planning appeals allowed against the council’s decision as a percentage of the total number of planning appeals against refusals of planning applications

Members were concerned that the Council’s housing land supply was having an impact on the KPI result, and if so then there ought to be an urgent course of actions. Officers agreed to circulate further information following the meeting and this was subsequently done by the Head of Planning on 1 October 2019:

“Performance Indicator 58 relates to minor and other planning appeals allowed against the Council’s decision.  The performance for Q1 2019/2020 was 41.7% against a rolling two-year target of 10%.  The note states that 12 appeal decisions were received in the quarter of which 5 were allowed.  It advises that officers will continue to monitor any identifiable trends in decision-making by the inspectorate and consider adapting approaches accordingly.

It is (not yet) the interpretation of Officers that housing land supply is having a significant effect on this situation.  Officers are acknowledging in their reports and in reports to the Development Management Committee (DMC) that the Council does not have a five year housing land supply and that more weight should be given to sustainable housing delivery.  This is well understood by the Committee and most of the reasons for refusal relate to other important matters such as design and impact on neighbouring amenity. 

The Housing Delivery Test Action Plan that we were required to prepare earlier this year considers how the Council (and its partners) might improve delivery.  It judges that the Council is actually pretty good at determining housing applications (95% of majors, 84% of minors and 90% of others approved within timescale and average 2.6 months).  It observes that delay can sometimes occur in the signing of Section 106 agreements for larger and more complex schemes (average 9.7 months).  It also notes that the largest time component of delivery is actually the period between permission and construction starting (13.3 months) and construction being completed (ranging from 8.9 months for small schemes of 0-4 dwellings up to 26.9 months for large schemes of 100-250 dwellings).  The Action Plan therefore states that the Council will continue to maintain these standards of determination and highlights the importance of progressing the Local Plan to allocate new sites for housing development”.

            RESOLVED:

(1)  That the Committee note the performance indicator data collected and reported. 

(2)  That the Committee discuss and agree any feedback to be provided to the Council service teams on the trends shown.