To consider the report.

RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY: That the order of agenda items was changed, so that the Corporate Plan 2021-26 Performance Report was considered first.

 

Rachel Kinniburgh, Service Lead – Strategic Policy, Performance and Insights, outlined the report. This was the second performance report which the Panel had considered and was reflective of performance up until 30^th September 2022. The report structure had been adapted following consideration of the first performance report, this included a clearer summary table of corporate plan goals. Work had been undertaken with the developer of the citizens portal to solve some technical limitations, these originally restricted the range of dates which could be showed to the user. There had also been an addition on operational focused metrics to the portal, these were designed to support the Panel’s interest in the corporate plan ‘a council trusted to deliver its promises’ objective. Officers had also improved the narrative given on the portal.

 

Considering the performance of the council, Rachel Kinniburgh explained that across the three main overarching objectives, there were six goals identified as areas of concern, with eleven were showing progress.

 

Councillor Werner had requested to see the benchmarking against comparable local authorities as he did not feel that the LGA benchmark was useful, he asked if officers had this information.

 

Rebecca Hatch, Head of Strategy, said that none of the comparable local authorities had done a resident survey which contained similar questions, therefore the data did not exist.

 

Councillor Werner asked how many local authorities were included in the LGA benchmark.

 

Rebecca Hatch explained that the LGA benchmark was a national survey of around 1,000 people over a selection of local authorities, this was a national average from a national survey.

 

Councillor Price said that she did not know what actions were being taken on the goals which were areas of concern, she felt that this should be part of the reporting mechanism.

 

Rachel Kinniburgh said that the action which would be taken had been included as part of the performance narrative, officers would consider how this area could be strengthened for future reports.

 

Rebecca Hatch added that the report allowed Panel Members to query how areas of concern would be addressed by officers.

 

Councillor Price considered that if a goal was unachievable due to officer capacity, this would be useful to know soon given that the budget setting process was underway.

 

Adele Taylor added that a lack of resources was not always a budgetary issue, it could be difficult to secure certain resources.

 

Councillor Sharpe commented on the central masterplan for Windsor and Ascot high street. These were two different areas of the borough, and it was unclear whether progress made was regarding Windsor or Ascot. There was a lack of detail on what progress had actually been made.

 

Andrew Durrant, Executive Director of Place, admitted that from the wording in the report it was easy to confuse the two separate strands of work and the progress that had been made. Later in the report, the goal had been broken down and milestones shown which gave more detail on progress.

 

Councillor Shape suggested that the two strands should be separate items.

 

Councillor Walters noted that there was a zero tolerance goal on anti-social behaviour and the safety of women and girls in the borough, he asked if it was a zero tolerance goal for both of these areas.

 

Rachel Kinniburgh clarified that these were two separate goals in the corporate plan, the summary table showed that progress had been made. There were two metrics for the safety of women and girls, with data drawn from the recent residents survey. There was also new data available for the goal of reducing public concern of anti-social behaviour.

 

Councillor Davies made reference to the number of women and girls who felt safe in the borough and noted that the lowest figure was for those over 75 years and social renters. She knew of some areas in her ward where social housing was on poorly light streets, Councillor Davies asked what could be done by RBWM.

 

Andrew Durrant confirmed that the topic would be considered at the Place Overview & Scrutiny Panel, considering street lighting, energy efficiency and concerns from young women that felt unsafe due to poor lighting.

 

Councillor Price commented on the Windsor Public Realm, the metric was that the project would be completed, she felt that the goal was not being measured correctly. Another example was the Windsor Vision, in the performance report it was explained that this would be considered by Cabinet. However, this paper did not appear on the Cabinet forward plan.

 

Andrew Durrant agreed with the comments made by Councillor Price on the Windsor Public Realm, it was hoped that there would be a final plan for the schedule of works on this project soon. Work could then start early in 2023, with the work taking around six months to complete. This could be updated on the portal to show the journey of each goal. Officers were aiming for February 2023 for a report on the Windsor Vision to be considered by Cabinet, Andrew Durrant would make sure that this was added to the Cabinet forward plan.

 

ACTION – Andrew Durrant to ensure that the portal was updated for the Windsor Public Realm project and that the Windsor Vision report was added to the Cabinet forward plan.

 

Councillor Sharpe felt that these were all projects in their own right, it would be useful for the Panel to see a project plan, which showed what was coming up. A lot of detail was added to the narrative but there were no timescales, so it was difficult for the Panel to understand what was happening with each project. Councillor Sharpe used the example of the Ascot high street project, there was no detail about the progress of this in the report. He asked why there was no Supplementary Planning Document for Ascot, there was no mention of this in any future plan.

 

Andrew Durrant responded by saying that of the 50 goals in the corporate plan, around half fell under the Place directorate. Working closely with the strategy team, it was important the Place team gave enough information so that the Panel could understand where the council was for each of the goals. There were areas where improvements could be made to the reporting, although it would not be possible to go into extensive detail on all goals.

 

Emma Duncan, Monitoring Officer and Director of Law, Governance and Public Health, said that there could be further stages added to the progress of each goal to better outline the journey. The performance report was highlighting the key priorities for the council at the current time. Panel Members could change the priorities of the corporate plan should they wish, but all goals could not be reported on each performance report.

 

Councillor Price had suggested at a previous meeting of the Panel, when the performance report was last considered, that the report could make reference to how the three priorities in the corporate plan were being delivered. From what she had read and heard, she was not clear how the council was performing against the three priorities.

 

Emma Duncan said that there was an issue in considering how things could be monitored that did not appear in the corporate plan. Programme management could be explored to see how it could added to the performance report, this was something that the strategy team were looking at.

 

Councillor Sharpe felt that it would be useful to know why some things were included in the performance report and why other things had not been included. For example, if the Ascot Supplementary Planning Document was not in the corporate plan, he queried why the Maidenhead Supplementary Planning Document was included as they were similar in nature.

 

The Chairman said that there needed to be appropriate metrics included to show the Panel where the council was in achieving the corporate plan, particularly with the plan having a timescale of five years.

 

Kevin McDaniel, Executive Director of People, said that goals which officers felt needed to be flagged were outlined in the performance report. If the Panel did not feel officers had flagged the goals which were a concern, they should be raised at the meeting to make officers aware.

 

Rebecca Hatch added that due to the significant number of goals and metrics, it could be difficult to select the right level of information to share with the Panel. Steps were being taken to strengthen programme management. On the comments made by Councillor Price, Rebecca Hatch said that connecting the priorities with the goals of the corporate plan could be reviewed for the next performance report.

 

Councillor Werner expressed concern that residents of Maidenhead were less satisfied than residents across the rest of the borough. He felt that the residents of Maidenhead were not being looked after by the council and this was something that needed to be addressed, although he could not see how this could be achieved through the corporate plan. Councillor Werner commented on the 17% of residents who did not want to use the internet, this was a high figure and many of the council’s services were now available predominantly through the internet. Councillor Werner referenced an example of an elderly person from his ward, he wanted to report an issue with a pavement but was unable to without using the report it tool on the council’s website. He asked how the council could provide its services both to those that wanted to use the internet, and those that did not.

 

Adele Taylor said that customer services were available over the phone and the council did provide assisted support to residents. The ability for residents to report issues easily online allowed the council to focus resource on those residents that needed additional support and were unable to use the internet. RBWM was not a digital only council.

 

Councillor Shelim noted that there were various hot spots and areas which were classed as high risk areas on anti-social behaviour. He asked if there was data available which showed what types of crime these areas were having issues with.

 

Kevin McDaniel explained that there was a Berkshire data observatory website which contained information on crimes by ward, this was a useful tool.

 

Councillor Sharpe added to the comments made by Councillor Werner on digital exclusion. In the south of the borough, the age was generally older and a number of residents did not use or have access to the internet. On resident satisfaction in Maidenhead, Councillor Sharpe said that there had been a significant amount of change recently in the town and as similar change was proposed in Ascot, he felt that it was important to consider how the council kept residents content with the changes which were planned.

 

Councillor Price commented on the targets which were set in the citizens portal. She used the example of affordable housing, in the Borough Local Plan there was a need to provide around 400 affordable homes each year. However, in the corporate plan the target was around 100 affordable homes, this had been achieved, but Councillor Price felt that there was more catch up needed in this area. Another target was for zero rough sleepers, there were currently six rough sleepers and this was regarded as a target which was on track.

 

Andrew Durrant explained that the Borough Local Plan exceeded the lifespan of the corporate plan and the goals which were contained within it. A housing trajectory had been drawn into the corporate plan goal, which reflected where the council needed to be during the timespan of the corporate plan. At this moment in time, RBWM was on track for both housing supply and provision of affordable housing.

 

ACTION – Andrew Durrant to discuss the affordable housing target further outside of the meeting with Councillor Price.

 

Adrien Waite, Head of Planning, continued by explaining that in the Borough Local Plan there was a stepped housing trajectory, which recognised that there were processes that needed to be undertaken before housing delivery could start. Delivery would therefore be lower in the first few years of the plan.

 

Councillor Price highlighted that there was a difference between what the need was and what officers thought needed to be delivered. She asked if the goal in the corporate plan was what officers thought would be delivered, or was the goal measured against the need of the community.

 

Adrien Waite confirmed that officers were measuring against the goal which had been set in the corporate plan, the stepped delivery set out how the goal would be delivered

 

Councillor Knowles considered the 24 emergency call out for issues with waste and environment. He had reported a number of issues with things like public toilets, these did not need an emergency response but were not recorded in the data against the goal in the corporate plan. If it was, Councillor Knowles felt that this would improve credibility.

 

The Chairman added that safety defects were responded to, but non-safety defects were not included as part of the metric, he agreed that this should be noted by officers. The Chairman considered the recommendation in the report, that issues should be flagged by the Panel. He suggested that the draft minutes from this agenda item could be circulated to the Panel, who could then decide if there were any areas which needed to be reviewed and these could be communicated through the minutes or referred to another overview and scrutiny panel for further consideration.

 

ACTION – Mark Beeley to circulate a draft version of the minutes for the agenda item to the Panel.

 

Councillor Sharpe suggested that some items could be referred back to Cabinet, to make the appropriate changes, so that the areas of reporting which had been highlighted by the Panel could be corrected.

 

The Chairman said that he would discuss with officers when it would be appropriate for an update report to be considered by the Panel, on the changes which had been made.

 

RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY: That Corporate Overview & Scrutiny Panel noted the report and:

 

i)             Agreed any areas of performance the Panel considered appropriate to refer for further, more detailed consideration.