Agenda item

To consider the Q2 (July-September) Performance Management report.

The Committee considered a report, set out at Agenda pages 45 to 80, which provided the Quarter 2 2020/21 Performance Monitoring Report (July – September 2020).

Louise Griffin, Performance and Programme Management Specialist, attended the meeting to present the report and answer Member questions.

The report stated that 39 (63%) of Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) were on track for delivery and were reported Green; 11 KPIs (18%) were off-target and were reported as Amber; 10 KPIs (16%) were reported as Red as the target was not achieved in Q2.

The report stated that, despite the significant impact of Covid-19, performance at the end of Q2 had remained positive across the majority of KPIs. However, the impact of the pandemic had resulted in fewer KPIs, overall, being on track compared with Q1.

During the discussion on the report, Members made the following points:

·           The Q2 report covered July – September 2020, but was being considered at the Overview and Scrutiny meeting on 25 November 2020. Was it possible to submit the report in a more timely manner to ensure that the data considered by Members was up to date?

·           RA5a - Successful homeless preventions – the information stated that there were 12 households, whose prevention duty ended in Q2. Eight of these cases ended successfully with accommodation being secured for six plus months. What happened to the other four cases?

·           PG26 - Air quality – Twyford data should be available for 2018 and the M4 was closed for some time period due to highways work, so this needed to be taken into account.

·           PG16 - Greenways and cycleways - Members pointed out some errors in the narrative – Cantley work Section 1 route B – work commences in Dec 2020 (not 2021) and completion of Section 3 is June 2021, so out of the target date or included in the 3km target?

·           AS9 - Permanent admissions to residential and nursing care homes:

o   How have admissions changed compared to pre-pandemic rates?

o   Does the target change based on the level of admissions?

o   What are the costs likely to be recoverable from the Government due to Covid-19?

o   Why has there been an increase? Members expected a decrease due to Covid-19? (The report in fact showed that there had been a fall in admissions).

o   What was the cost incurred and how do we measure this change in demand due to Covid-19 and its impact?

·           RA7 - Revenue budget monitoring – Members were pleased to see that Covid-19 spend was incorporated into the reporting. What were the timescales for recovering costs from the Government?

·           PG3 - Local Plan Update:

o   How do we decide whether the Local Plan Update is on track - are we setting SMART targets/tolerances?

o   What is the target completion date for the Local Plan Update and has this changed?

·           KPIs in development – Members would like an update on timescales for finalising these indicators, particularly the indicator to measure staff satisfaction.

·           CIC1 - Recorded crime – Members had received a presentation from Thames Valley Police (TVP) showing that crime levels had deteriorated during the first lockdown. The Performance Monitoring report showed a rise. Louise Griffin explained that it could be that we were reporting data up to September 2020 but TVP would be able to share up to October/November.

·           PG12 - Average daily traffic flow – this PI was measured annually – did officers have an indication locally of the impact of Covid-19 on traffic flows across the Borough.

·           Report Appendix – the order of the tables was confusing. In the Appendix, dates from top to bottom were listed in ascending order. In the cover report the tables listed Q2 at the top and Q1 below. A more consistent layout was requested.

·           PG1 – S106 allocations – it was advised that allocations may have decreased due to developers holding onto CIL. Members asked what affect this was having.

·           PG6 – affordable dwellings – how had this been affected by Covid-19? Louise Griffin stated that the majority of completions were usually planned in Q3 and Q4 and that much of the planned completions were in 2019/20 so we were expecting less this year. It was felt that construction work was ongoing but Members would like to know how this was affected by Covid-19.

·           CIC13 – Percentage of calls answered - Members felt that this percentage KPI gave a misleading indication of how WBC was responding to calls. Members would like to see two additional measures reported in future:

o   Time it takes to answer calls (previously three rings);

o   Number of calls dropped/abandoned;

o   Member referred to the message on the phone about using the website as residents were calling because they could not complete the action online;

o   The indicator may be giving a misleading impression of calls and how WBC was responding and dealing with demand;

o   It was confirmed that a corporate review of call handling/customer service was ongoing;

o   Members requested an update on the future plans and progress with the review.

·           PG13 – Proportion of highway schemes on track for delivery. Members questioned whether officers were reporting the RAG rating based on original timescales set or whether this is based on changing timescales. For example, some schemes were 6-10 years delayed (from original estimates). How have dates and targets been changed?

RESOLVED That:

1)    Louise Griffin be thanked for attending the meeting to present the report and answer Member questions;

2)    the Q2 2020/21 Performance Monitoring report be noted:

3)    Members receive further information on the KPI queries raised (as set out above);

4)    in relation to KPI CIC 13 – Percentage of calls answered – two additional indicators be recommended for inclusion in future reports:

o    Time taken to answer calls (previously three rings);

o    Number of calls dropped/abandoned.