Agenda item

Council Plan Performance Monitoring - 2015/16

To consider the latest report on Council performance management information.


The Committee considered a report and supporting Appendix, set out at Agenda pages 19-52, that provided performance management information in relation to the Council’s activities.


Julie Holland, Service Manager Business Improvement, introduced the report and stated that the majority of performance indicators were currently on track and were rated Green. A small number of indicators were currently rated Amber or Red as follows:


·       % of Care Proceedings in 2015/16 completed within 26 weeks of application (Red).

·       % of eligible population (aged 40-70) who received an NHS health check (Amber).

·       Integration with Health (Better Care Fund) (Amber).

·       Berkshire West Joint Commissioning Function (Amber).

·       Assets Programme - Options for Council Land and Property (Amber).

·       ICT transfer 2016 (Amber).


The Committee considered each section of the report in turn. Councillor Kaiser answered Members’ questions relating to the indicators covering his portfolio. Councillor Kaiser confirmed that the performance indicators were one of several tools used to manage service performance. Regular meetings were held with Officers to discuss performance issues and to identify emerging problems. There was a clear expectation that Officers would notify the Executive Member when indicators were starting to move off track.


Councillor Norman Jorgensen referred to the recently published Ofsted report on Children’s Services and asked how the Ofsted findings mapped against the relevant Council performance indicators, i.e. were the Ofsted findings consistent with the performance information provided to Members through the quarterly performance monitoring. It was confirmed that the Children’s Services Overview and Scrutiny Committee would be considering the Ofsted report in detail at its meeting on 23 February 2016. Councillor Helliar-Symons would then report back to the next meeting of this Committee in March 2016.


Members raised a general concern about the timeliness of the data in the performance report. The report covered the second quarter i.e July – September 2015. This meant that the data was several months out of date. It was confirmed that the 2016-17 meetings calendar had been adjusted to ensure that the performance data reported to the Overview and Scrutiny Committees was more up to date.


Members raised the following comments and questions in respect of specific indicators.



·       Agenda page 23 - % of Looked After Children living within 20 miles of their home. Quarter 2 performance of 64.3% was below the target of 70-75%. Consequently, Members queried why the performance indicator status was shown as Green.

·       Agenda page 26 – HIV diagnosed prevalence per 1,000 people aged 15-59. Members queried why the BME community was identified as one of the high risk groups.

·       Agenda page 27 - % of older people aged 65 and over discharged from hospital during 2015-16 back to their own home or extra care housing for rehabilitation who are at home or in extra care housing 91 days after the date of their discharge from hospital. Members queried the lack of a figure for Quarter 2 and the resulting Green status.

·       Agenda page 30 – Integration with Health (Better Care Fund). Members noted the areas of slippage highlighted in the report and asked for more information on any implications for the Council.

·       Agenda page 31 – Westmead Replacement (at Southlake Community Hub). Members queried the lack of earlier information on the termination of this project. Members also emphasised the importance of carrying out a needs analysis as part of any replacement project. It was confirmed that the project would be reviewed and that assessing the level of need from service users would be the first stage of a new project.

·       Agenda page 32 – Number of cycle trips on the A329 corridor (Local Strategic Transport Fund project investment area). Members queried the lack of data and indicator status and asked for information on the actual number of cyclists using the A329 corridor.

·       Agenda page 35 – Secondary School in the South. Members asked for details of the Project Management arrangements for this major project.

·       Agenda page 36 – Number of affordable dwellings permitted (including where an off-site contribution was received) (annual) and number of affordable dwellings completed (annual). Members queried the Green indicator status for these two indicators based on the actual figures for Quarter 2. It was confirmed that these were annual targets and that the targets related to monitoring against known plans. Members requested that the indicator commentaries be expanded to reflect this explanation together with information on the profiling for the known plans.


·       Agenda page 41 – Journey times on key routes across the Borough. Members asked for details of the routes used in collecting data for this indicator. It was confirmed that Heather Thwaites, Director of Environment would provide details of the routes used for circulation to the Committee.

·       Agenda page 42 – Major Road Projects (Arborfield Cross Relief Road, North and South Wokingham Distributor Roads). Members queried the Green status of the three indicators based on the information set out in the commentary section of the report. It was confirmed that the Green status was correct based on the individual project timetables. Members requested more detail of the phasing of the projects in the Commentary section of the report.


·       Agenda page 45 – Assets Programme. Members asked for more information on the reasons for the time delays set out in the report.

·       Agenda page 46 – % of service users satisfied with the Environmental Regulatory Services (shared service) Annual Monitoring. Members queried the sample size which underpinned the 88% satisfaction rating set out in the report.

·       Agenda page 46 – Proportion of planning breaches resolved by negotiation. Members queried the reduction from 87% in Quarter 1 to 60% in Quarter 2 and asked about the number of cases and how the target was set. It was confirmed that the sample size was relatively small which could explain the fluctuation from Quarter 1 to Quarter 2. It was also confirmed that the phrase “resolved by negotiation” meant that the Council had been successful in removing the planning breach.




1)      the Council Plan Performance Monitoring Report – Quarter 2 (2015/16) be noted;


2)      the Council Plan Performance Monitoring Report to the March 2016 meeting of the Committee include proposals to address Members’ concerns about the timeliness and quality of performance data submitted to the Overview and Scrutiny Committees.


3)      the Children’s Services Overview and Scrutiny Committee, on 23 February 2016, be requested to map the findings of the recent Ofsted report on Children’s Services against the Council’s key performance indicators for Children’s Services, with a report back to the next meeting of the Management Committee in March 2016.


4)      the further information relating to the issues raised by Members on specific performance indicators be circulated outside of the meeting.




Supporting documents: