Members considered performance outturns against the key Council priorities for Quarter 3, 2015/16.

The Principal Member highlighted changes in the format of the report to make it more accessible. Overall performance was slightly better than the previous quarter but down on the same period the previous year. It was proposed to reduce the number of first tier indicators by three. The three indicators would be moved into the second tier. If performance dipped they could be returned to the top tier.

The Lead Member for Planning commented that the processing of planning applications was a key service to residents therefore he was disappointed with performance. External consultants were working with planning officers. From October 2015 3.5 FTE consultants had been involved in the determination of planning applications. The number of applications determined had increased as follows:

·         October 2015 – 198 applications

·         November 2015 – 181 applications

·         December 2015 – 268 applications

·         January 2016 – 274 applications

The performance figures in the report went up to December 2015. In January 2016 75% of major applications had been dealt with in time against a national target of 60% and a local target of 70%. For minor applications performance had been 73% against a national target of 65% and a local target of 75%. For other applications performance had been 76.03% against  a national target of 80% and a local target of 90%.

The Lead Member explained that one planning officer was soon due to leave the authority and one was due to go on maternity leave. The process of recruitment had begun but it was a very tight market. If the consultant was not in place the situation would be even worse. The contract was originally due to end in February 2016 but was likely to continue for the foreseeable future to ensure performance improved. A service review process was shortly due to come to conclusion. Additional resources may be needed to stabilise the number of applications.

The Chairman commented that more applications coming in was a good thing in light of the ‘builders’ budget’ referred to at the full Council meeting held earlier that week. It was important that applications were dealt with in a timely and efficient manner.

The Lead Member for Youth Services and Safeguarding highlighted that, in relation to indicator CS78, she was not happy that the table reflected the great work being undertaken in the Intensive Family Support Programme. In 14/15 the council had worked with 192 families. In 2015/16 the target was 108, with 80 involved up to December 2015, therefore she was confident the target would be reached. The next time the indicator was reported she wished for it to show cumulative data. In relation indicator SG3, stability of placements for children in care, she highlighted that the year end target would not be met. Whilst it was recognised that no move was positive, equally a child staying in an inappropriate placement was not a good thing. The council was committed to all children in care having stability and the right placement. One of the movements recorded was an adoption, which was a positive move. In relation to indicator SG40, the Lead Member highlighted that the MASH had been launched at the start of the year, co-located in the Town Hall. The MASH would enable earlier flagging of cases and working together to improve safeguarding. It was therefore anticipated that the number of young people identified at risk of child sexual exploitation would rise, but this was a good thing as it meant the council could monitor and take action.

The Chairman highlighted that the important measure in relation to the IFSP was how the council was making a difference, as opposed to the number of families involved. The Strategic Director confirmed that families were tracked in terms of their achievements, for example in relation to employment, school attendance and criminal behaviour. The programme had been broadened to include domestic abuse and mental health issues. The Chairman commented that it would be interesting to see some of the metrics.

The Lead Member for Customer and Business Services highlighted that the percentage of calls answered in less than one minute was now reaching 82% compared to a target of 75%. The call abandon rate was less than 5%. The time taken to process council tax and housing benefit claims was down to 3.5 days. The council was the top performing unitary in the south east and in the top quartile nationally.

The Lead Member for Adult Services and Health referred to the number of permanent admissions to care homes. The last twelve months had seen an increase in the number of un-elective admissions to hospital. The council worked with the NHS to take people out of hospital as soon as possible to free up beds. Most went back to their own home but a number had to move into residential care. The borough had the most care homes per head of population than anywhere else in the country. When individuals in care homes ran out of money, the council picked up the bill. The Chairman commented individuals may already be in a care home but they came into the figures when they ran out of funds He asked for the metrics for this and questioned whether the measure was correct. The Lead Member agreed this was worth reviewing.

The Lead Member for Environmental Services reported that the performance in relation to indicator CCA02 had improved since the relaunch of the food waste scheme. The warm autumn had also seen increased green waste collections. The performance also reflected the move to more waste being diverted to an Energy from Waste plant.

The Chairman preferred to an increase in staff sickness, which he had been advised was in part due to the difference between leisure staff that were no longer measured as they came under Parkwood and other staff. He would be discussing the issue with HR and report back. In relation to agency spend, he commented that there had been increased use in planning policy and regeneration, where results were being delivered.

RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY: That Cabinet:

i.       Note the progress made against the performance measures listed in the IPMR Quarter 3 2015/16 report. 

ii.      Agree to move three primary Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) as detailed in paragraph 2.11 to secondary indicators as they all continue to perform strongly