Agenda item

Purpose: To monitor quarterly the performance levels across the Council and to consider, where appropriate, any remedial action.

The Commission considered a report (Agenda Item 11) on the quarter one performance levels across the Council. Nick Carter advised that 10 items had been reported as ‘amber’ and no items had been reported as ‘red’ at present.

Councillor Mike Johnson questioned the terminology used in item 1.4 of the covering report and asked that future reports clearly stated the purpose of the information which followed. Nick Carter advised that the report would be reviewed to avoid confusion.

Councillor Alan Macro challenged the RAG status associated with reintroduction of empty homes which had been set a target of 80 for the year (2014/15) and was currently reported as 0. Nick Carter advised that the RAG status considered anticipated delivery by the end of the year and therefore the current RAG status informed Members that the service expected that the target would be achieved by year end.

Councillor Macro asked whether there was any information behind the decrease in planning applications received. Rachael Wardell suggested that the figures would not reflect the number of properties delivered; one application could be submitted for a number of dwellings on one site and therefore, the number was not a significant concern.

Councillor Roger Hunneman stated that items which referred to the number of days to make a decision regarding new benefit claims and changes to benefit claims required further explanation within the report. Nick Carter acknowledged the suggestion and agreed that items reported as ‘amber’ required contextualising via supporting commentary. The Commission heard that the current RAG status for both items was not unusual at an early point of the financial year. Nick Carter stressed that, as per previous year’s performances, the speed of processing increased through the year as volume of claims stabilised.

Councillor Jeff Brooks asked what could be done to address the number of delayed transfers of care as outlined within the report. Rachael Wardell advised that a significant amount of time and staff resources had been allocated to ensuring transfer times were managed effectively. The Commission heard that resources were committed to delivering against the target but transfer times were often influenced by contributing factors outside the Council’s control. Rachael Wardell stressed that the target was important to ensure services were focused on delivering quick and efficient transfers but stressed that the conditions of the system sometimes delayed the process. In her opinion the current level of delayed cases were not a concern; the service would continue to try and reduce the number of delayed cases in line with the target.

Councillor Macro asked whether Section 106 negotiations would influence the time required to process ‘major’’ planning applications within 13 weeks. Nick Carter advised that complex negotiations influenced processing times but it was not a regular occurrence. He advised the Commission to retain the current target level until the situation was understood further.  Councillor Quentin Webb advised that the Task Group challenged the target and was satisfied with the justification provided by the service. He concurred with Nick Carter’s suggestion.

Councillor Macro asked why the target had been lowered significantly for Key Stage 2, Special Education Needs (SEN) children’s achievements. Rachael Wardell advised that the target reflected the needs and ability of the 2014/15 cohort.

Resolved that the report be noted.