Agenda item

(CSP: All)

Purpose:

(1)          To report year end outturns against the Key Accountable Measures contained in the 2015/16 Council Performance Framework and any additional performance intelligence.

(2)          To provide assurance to Members that the objectives laid out in the Council Strategy and other areas of significance / importance across the Council are being delivered.

(3)          To present, by exception, those measures/milestones not achieved and to cite any remedial action taken and its impact to allow the scrutiny and approval of the corrective or remedial action put in place.

Resolved that:

·         progress against the Council Strategy priorities for improvement would be noted and achievements celebrated.

·         those areas reporting as ‘red’ were reviewed to ensure that appropriate action was in place.

This decision is not subject to call in as:

·      Report is to note only

therefore it will be implemented immediately.

The Executive considered a report (Agenda Item 6) which outlined year end outturns against the Key Accountable Measures (KAMs) contained in the 2015/16 Council Performance Framework and any additional performance intelligence; provided assurance to Members that the objectives laid out in the Council Strategy and other areas of significance/importance across the Council were being delivered; and which presented, by exception, those measures/milestones behind schedule or not achieved and the remedial action taken/its impact.

Councillor Roger Croft explained that this report marked the end of the first year of the four year Council Strategy and reported that progress was being made in all priority areas. This was despite the financial pressures faced by the Council and increases in demand in some areas of activity. Councillor Croft added that a near to balanced budget had been achieved for 2015/16.

A key area of activity over the past year had been within Children and Family Services with significant effort being made to move from the ‘inadequate’ Ofsted judgement to ‘Good’. It was also the case that the outcome of the recently undertaken LGA Peer Review would soon be published and it was hoped that this would also show that the service was moving towards ‘Good’.

Councillor Croft also highlighted that an action plan would be developed to enable the Council to focus on enabling the delivery of 1000 affordable homes by 2020.

81% of the reported KAMs had been achieved for 2015/16 and were therefore ‘Green’, this compared to 78% achieved for 2014/15.

Five KAMS had been reported as ‘Red’ and Councillor Croft explained that plans were in place at service area level to address these.

Councillor Alan Law made reference to the Measures of Volume section of the report which highlighted that Business Rate growth was at an all time high and that the number of Jobseekers Allowance claimants in West Berkshire amounted to the second lowest unemployment rate in southern England.

Continuing with Measures of Volume, Councillor Hilary Cole pointed out the significant rise in the number of transactions made through the Council’s website. This demonstrated that a high number of transactions could be easily accessed and achieved online by residents. Councillor James Fredrickson added to this point by advising that the Council’s website received an overhaul around two months ago and this helped to enable the achievement of tasks online.

Councillor Marcus Franks advised that the number of crimes reported to Thames Valley Police (for West Berkshire) continued to reduce and the figure for Quarter Four 2015/16 was at the lowest point of the last three years.

Councillor Alan Macro noted that 158 affordable housing units had been completed during 2015/16, this was down from a figure of over 200 in 2014/15 and Councillor Macro queried whether the target of delivering 1000 affordable homes by 2020 was in jeopardy. This was particularly concerning when considering that the viability of affordable housing was reported as an issue for housing developers. In response, Councillor Croft reiterated his earlier point that an action plan would be developed to help enable the achievement of this target. He did however acknowledge the changing environment in terms of viability challenges for developers.

Councillor Macro then turned to the core business measure of the proportion of older people who were still at home 91 days after discharge from hospital. Year end performance of 79% was achieved against the target of 92% and Councillor Macro queried the reasons for this. Councillor Cole explained that this concerned a small cohort of people. Therefore, this measure not being achieved for one individual could alter the percentage achieved quite significantly.

Councillor Macro referred to the ‘Red’ measure to reduce the attainment gap at GCSE between disadvantaged and other pupils. For the 2014/15 Academic Year, this gap was at 34.7 percentage points and this was significantly higher than the national average. Councillor Macro sought assurance that efforts would be made to achieve improvement in this area. Councillor Croft advised that Councillor Dominic Boeck, Portfolio Holder for Education, would provide a written response on that point.

Councillor Lee Dillon commented that there were multiple cases where Quarter Four data was not included within graphs, where exception reports were not up to date and where reference was made to actions to be completed when in fact they had been undertaken, i.e. the Peer Review within Children and Family Services. Councillor Dillon highlighted the importance of ensuring this report was up to date to enable effective scrutiny to take place. If it was the case that data was awaited from an external source then this should be explained in the report.

Councillor Fredrickson responded to these comments by firstly stating that the content of the report was as up to date as possible at the time of issue and Officers worked hard to produce this report within a tight timeframe. He added that it was published in advance of the meeting and there was therefore scope to rectify any inaccuracies prior to the meeting if they were made known and were of significance. Councillor Dillon stated that in some cases points of inaccuracy etc had already been raised and he would therefore have expected these to be rectified.

Councillor Lynne Doherty commented on the specific reference made to the Children and Family Services Peer Review and explained that this took place within 2016/17. It was therefore not referenced in this 2015/16 Year End report.

Councillor Dillon then returned Members to performance against Priority B – Enable the Completion of more Affordable Housing. This noted that the Sandleford Planning Application had been received and this development had the potential to provide 40% affordable housing units from the up to 2000 home development. However, Councillor Dillon queried whether there was confidence that this would be achieved when considering concerns of viability. Councillor Law confirmed that there was no threat to 40% of the Sandleford application being for affordable housing. This was part of the Sandleford Master Plan against which all planning applications for the site would be judged.

Councillor Law also took the opportunity to comment on the concerns raised regarding viability. The Government criteria for viability rules had changed and this recommended the inclusion of starter homes as affordable. These homes were not as yet included in West Berkshire’s affordable housing figures and doing so could improve the Council’s performance in this area.

Mention was also made in this section of the report to the activity of Strategy Board in relation to affordable housing and Councillor Dillon questioned whether this reference should be amended to the work of Executive Members. Councillor Croft acknowledged this point and explained that Strategy Board was indeed a private meeting. He did however clarify that Strategy Board was not a decision making body.

Finally, in terms of affordable housing, Councillor Dillon noted from the report that due to the Council’s difficult financial position the service responsible for bringing empty property back into use would cease. This could have a further negative impact on the ability to achieve the affordable housing target with empty homes not being returned to use. June Graves explained that work to bring empty properties back into use had achieved varied degrees of success. Support had been given to landlords to help achieve this, but properties brought back into use did not necessarily become new homes and did not necessarily contribute towards the affordable housing target.

Councillor Dillon welcomed the work undertaken to date to improve Children and Family Services to ‘Good’ performance. He also commended the excellent Member briefing received on this subject recently. Councillor Dillon looked forward to a new Inspection of the service. Councillor Croft gave thanks for these comments and added that social work teams worked tirelessly in helping to achieve this crucial priority.

Councillor Dillon then turned to the priority to ‘Become a more effective Council’. He questioned the Council’s effectiveness when considering issues which had arisen as part of/following recent decisions. Councillor Dillon specifically named the mistakes made surrounding the London Road Industrial Estate (LRIE) report and the loss of the Judicial Review (JR) of Short Breaks on a technicality following the Council’s decision on this matter.

Councillor Fredrickson responded to these points. In terms of the JR, this was indeed lost on a procedural matter. The Judge had commented on the significant efforts made by Officers to inform Members in advance of this decision, but the overview given of relevant regulations was not considered sufficient and this was needed in full. This was the technicality on which the case was lost. The Judge had acknowledged the difficult financial position faced by the Council and the associated reasons for the decision. The Council’s process had also been accepted.

Plans for the LRIE would help to achieve the Council’s affordable housing commitment and it was important that projects of this type were proceeded with to aid the delivery of this target. The potential for legal challenge had to be accepted when considering the number of parties affected by the plans for the LRIE.

Councillor Dillon then turned to the Measure of Volume which captured the number of alcohol related admissions to hospital. This showed a rising trend and Councillor Dillon queried plans to address this. Councillor Graham Jones noted that the trend was moving upwards, but pointed out that alcohol related admissions for West Berkshire was well below the national average. He did however offer a fuller answer in writing to explain the rising trend, alternatively Councillor Dillon could query this point directly with the Public Health and Wellbeing Service.

Councillor Dillon noted that the number of bus passenger journeys commencing in West Berkshire was increasing year on year and queried whether this was expected to continue. Councillor Garth Simpson explained that as part of the necessity to reduce bus subsidies in response to the Council’s financial challenges, the volume was projected to reduce, but by no more than 15%. However, should the economy continue to grow then the number of bus journeys commencing in West Berkshire could see an increase.

Councillor Dillon returned to the point made earlier on the number of transactions made through the Council’s website and queried whether the number and the ‘most requested tasks’ themselves changed as a result of Council consultations. He also queried the particularly high increase at Quarter Four. Councillor Fredrickson agreed to confirm these points after liaising with Councillor Dominic Boeck, Portfolio Holder for ICT.

RESOLVED that:

(1)   the progress made against the Council Strategy priorities for improvement would be noted.

(2)   those areas reporting as ‘red’ were reviewed to ensure that appropriate action was in place.

Reason for the decision: to note the year end performance of the Council against the Key Accountable Measures.

Other options considered: None.