Agenda item

To scrutinise Q4 outturns against the Key Accountable Measures contained in the 2017/18 Council Performance Framework and consider topics for more detailed investigation. 

The Commission considered the report (Agenda Item 10) which outlined quarter four outturns for the key accountable measures which monitored performance against the 2017/18 Council Performance Framework; provided assurance that the objectives set out in the Council Strategy and other areas of significant activity were being managed effectively; presented, by exception, those measures that were RAG rated ‘red’ (targets not achieved) and provided information on any remedial action/its impact; and recommended changes to measures/targets as requested by services.

The Commission was responsible for scrutinising Q4 outturns and with considering topics for more detailed investigation.

Catalin Bogos stated that exception reports were included within the report and invited questions from the Commission. 

Councillor Lee Dillon noted that only two thirds of the targets had been achieved. This did not align with the 80/20 (green/red) split that had been referred to in previous years. He accepted that targets were ambitious but in a third of cases they had not been achieved and the targets were there to improve services for residents. Catalin Bogos noted that there were a number of targets set at 25%. The aim was to be within the top 25% of best achieving authorities nationally and positive progress had been made. However, other authorities were also improving and in some cases faster than West Berkshire Council. Effort would be made to ensure target setting was realistic.

Councillor Emma Webster referred to planning targets and queried why targets were being set below the previous year’s performance. Catalin Bogos reported that targets had been set in agreement with the Industry Forum. There had been significant challenge at Corporate Board to analyse what the implications of this were.

Nick Carter stated that he was interested to see statistics for Development Control and felt that targets were being set too low.Processing times were relatively poor and fewer applications were being determined. Nick Carter confirmed that targets would be reset to 80% or higher. There was a good degree of challenge in this area and therefore it was anticipated that the situation would be turned around by Quarter 1 (2019).

Councillor Webster noted that the target date had been changed and queried the rationale behind this. Nick Carter reported that this was a result of the New Ways of Working. Planning Policy supported the appeal process and as a result there had been slippage in the Local Plan timetable.

Councillor Dillon referred to the Local Plan and the Minerals and Waste Local Plan and asked what risk was associated with moving the deadline for submission of these documents to April 2020. Nick Carter could not confirm the risks that existed and he was unable to comment on the technicalities. A written reply would be required on this from Development and Planning.

 Councillor Webster queried if there was potential for future challenge in light of recent changes by Government to policy. Nick Carter suggested that it would be worth considering a New Ways of Working Review. 

Councillor Rick Jones referred to Councillor Dillon’s point about target setting. It was important that the organisation continued to improve however it was about how far they were prepared to stretch services.

Nick Carter reported that there was little control over some of the targets set. For example targets around broadband were set externally. It depended on what targets were chosen as to what level of control there was. Red targets were concentrated in certain areas, for example Education, and therefore the Commission might wish to debate these particular areas at a future meeting. 

Councillor Dillon noted that vast majority of the red targets were people based. He then referred to exception reports and stated that many of these reports referred to vulnerable groups, of whom the Local Authority was there to serve and protect. In some cases the authority was tied to national targets for example around KS4 results. Councillor Webster concurred with Councillor Dillon and felt that Ian Pearson should be approached. Councillor Webster asked if it was acceptable if an area like West Berkshire was achieving just above the national score. Many jobs required certain GCSE result and if these grades were not being achieved then questions needed to be raised about how the issue was going to be resolved. 

Councillor Jones commended Catalin Bogos on the quality of the Performance Report and the clear information provided. Councillor Webster concurred and stated that the level of detail on complex information, which was presented in a very understandable format was a credit to him. Catalin Bogos used the opportunity to thank his team and those had who provided information from other teams.

RESOLVED that:

(1)   A written reply be provided by the Minerals and Waste Team regarding the risks associated with moving the deadline to 2020.

(2)   A possible review of the New Ways of Working be considered.

(3)   Ian Pearson to be asked about Education targets achieving just above the national score and actions in place to resolve particular issues such as KS4 GCSE results.