Agenda item

The Panel received a report which provided the first regular update on the Council’s progress against the actions outlined in the Corporate Delivery Plan (CDP) 2024-26. The report was introduced by Nathan Pierce, Chief Digital and Innovation Officer as set out in the agenda pack at pages 167-216. Taryn Eves, Director of Finance was also present for this agenda item. The following arose in discussion of this report:

a.    The Panel requested that quarterly finance and performance briefings were restarted with the four scrutiny panel chairs. (Action: Scrutiny Officer).

b.    The Panel requested a written response from the Housing service in relation to High Road West and the level of risk that has been identified in relation to Lendlease and not delivering 500 new Council homes on that site. The Panel also requested an explanation of the 51 homes being brought up to Decent Homes Standard (in year) against a target of 700 – the Panel requested information about the reasons behind the delays. (Action: Philip/Director of Housing).

c.    The Panel commented that they welcomed the report, it’s layout, and welcomed the fact that 64% of performance outcomes were positive. The Panel sought assurances about what the impact on the CDP might be from a worsening financial position. In response, officers advised that the two went hand-in hand and that the budget setting process was there in order to allow the council to deliver on its priorities. It was acknowledged that future budgetary constraints could impact the CDP, but that any risk of this would be set out in future quarterly reports. Any changes to the CDP would need to be agreed by SLT and Cabinet. Officers advised that that Category A programmes were related to savings and that these were monitored monthly through the Change programme. The Chief Digital and Innovation Officer advised that future reports could highlight lines in the CDP that report on savings, that were red or amber. (Action: Nathan Pierce).

d.    The Chair suggested that he thought the performance indicators that were red or amber were more likely to be contributing to some of the budget pressures, rather than the other way around. In response, the Director of Finance and the Chief Digital and Innovation Officer agreed to have a discussion outside the meeting and agree how best to reflect performance indicators that were having a budget impact, in future reports. (Action: Taryn/Nathan).

e.    The Panel raised concerns with indicators that were red or amber because of having no budget allocated to them. The Panel requested that future reports provide more information about why there was no budget allocated. Officers advised that a similar discussion had taken place at SLT and it had been agreed that this would be amended in future reports.  (Action: Nathan Pierce).

f.     The Panel requested the future reports better highlight some of the key outputs for the Council, rather than treating all of the 180+ performance lines the same.  Members commented that things like the Housing Improvement Plan and housing repairs should have more explanation than some of the less critical indicators. Officers agreed to give some consideration as to how best to highlight the key programmes and providing additional commentary for service areas that have problems  but are marked as being green.

g.    The Panel queried the metric around reducing gambling harm and the fact that it was reported as green. Members queried whether anything had been done to measure gambling harm, and the extent to which it had been reduced. If not, why was the indicator reported as being green. Officers agreed to follow up in writing. (Action: Nathan).

RESOLVED

That the report was noted