Agenda item

The Committee received the Performance Management Report to the End of Quarter Three (December) 2012. The information had been organised into priorities, which would be developed further. It was a testament to Officers that the report had made the meeting due to the timing and pressures to bring the information together. Thanks were recorded to Officers, as the Committee had previously advised against receiving retrospective figures, which had been addressed. The figures reflected that a number of areas were a work in progress, with an improvement expected to be shown by the end of the year. 

The Committee received an update from the Leader of the Council regarding the street and environment figures for quarter two. This was requested at the 19 November meeting and of the first tranche figures considered at the that meeting, in the case of litter, resources needed to be targeted towards retail and commercial areas, high obstruction housing, highways and recreation areas. In the case of detritus, resources needed to be targeted towards high obstruction housing, industry and warehousing and highways. Resources would be targeted to tackle problem areas for the next performance management report. It was noted that the figures for litter had improved for the quarter three report; they were still over target, but there was a reduction from the figures for the previous quarter.

The question was raised why the overall status of the four priority areas was a moderate indicator, when for some priority areas the majority of indicators were positive. It was expected that an average of the figures was translated into an indicator and to get an overall positive one, there would need to be unanimous positive indicators for that priority. It was noted by Members that there was not a target for the violence with injury indicator (1.2 in the report), and questioned if this should be zero. The figures for this were not received as regularly as Officers would like, however to have a zero target may be unrealistic as these incidents did take place.

Members referred to point 1.8 in the report (the percentage of household waste sent for reuse, recycling and composting) and questioned how much recycled waste was rejected for being mixed up in the wrong containers. Due to the kerb side sorting system there was a nil rejection rate and a high standard of refuse was collected. There was inevitably an element of the wrong items being placed in the wrong bags, but on the whole the system worked well and there were no negative reports from the processing plants. It was questioned whether the poor weather of the previous Friday had an adverse affect on point 1.9 of the report (measure missed bin collections on all our routes). There had been a decision to suspend bin collections due to the weather on the afternoon of Friday 18 January, and the suspended collections would not be classed as being missed.

An increase in the average number of days lost per employee through sickness was noted by Members. It was important to give context to the figures, due to the size of the organisation there were two or three people off on long term sickness and these were being managed accordingly by Human Resources. It was important for individuals to return to work from long term sickness when they were fit to and the Council should be mindful and sensitive to their needs. Through the Human Resources Officers, long term sickness was managed well. It was necessary for short term sickness to be managed more closely to address employees having occasional days off; although short term absence was not considered to be a concern. It was questioned whether there were comparative figures for employee absence with neighbouring local authorities. The Borough Council was performing well and would probably be in the top quarter for absence figures in both Staffordshire and nationally. The target for absence for 2013/14 would be set as part of the Council Plan approval process and would be considered by Cabinet in March. The target remained quite demanding; it was comparatively low and had been decreased in the last three years.

The Portfolio Holder for Finance and Budget Management provided the Committee with an update for point 4.3 of the report (the percentage projected variance against the full year Council budget), the figures of which had been unavailable when the agenda was published. At the end of quarter three there was a positive variance of £7,000. From an expected spend of £5,235,000 there had been an actual spend of £5,228,000. Thanks were extended from the Leader on behalf of the Portfolio Holder for Finance and Budget Management to the Council’s finance team, as when considering the current economic climate, the positive variance was impressive.

The Leader had information relating to all moderate indicators in the report and this would be distributed to the Committee. The Chair would be attending February Cabinet to provide feedback on the budget setting process, but would also make comment on the Performance Management report as required.

RESOLVED:              (a) That the information be received.

(b) That information regarding the moderate indicators in the report be distributed to the Committee.