Agenda item

The Committee heard from the Change, Projects and Performance Officer regarding the progress and delivery report, which set out the performance across the Council for quarter two 2024/2025, and included the performance improvement plan, covering the period from July to September. It was explained that 81% of all measures were either exceeding or within agreed tolerance of their targets, compared to 83.7% measures in quarter one.

The Officer highlighted the details contained within the performance improvement plan, explaining that the Council Tax Collection Rate and NNDR Collection Rate both reported within tolerance for quarter two and so had been removed from the performance improvement plan, although would continue to be closely monitored. New additions to the plan included the percentage of households spending more than 42 nights in B&B accommodation. The Committee heard it was expected to feature as the target was set at zero, in line with guidance and what the Council needed to strive to achieve. It was recognised that this was a challenging target, with the only temporary accommodation in Cross Street, but the Temporary Accommodation project was now in motion which would provide additional units, with two of these being out of the Gainsborough area.

The percentage of food standards agency inspections completed was also a new addition to the performance improvement plan. This measure was one that Members had been informed of, as it was raised within the annual work plan in May. The Manager had provided an update for the performance improvement plan, however there was a mid-year report due at the Regulatory Committee in December, and so a more detailed update would be made following that report. Members were assured, however, that with increased capacity within the team, it was expected that inspection numbers would begin to increase over the next quarter.

The final new addition to the plan was T24 savings delivered. It was explained this was an annual cumulative target, which was being monitored against the current position, and a position statement would be provided as part of the quarter three update.

It was explained that there were two measures which remained in the Performance Improvement Plan. Those were: the Disabled Facilities Grants (DFGs) measures and Market Stalls. In relation to the DFGs, it was not expected that the performance of these measures would change given the budget position, the focus being on lobbying for fair distribution of funding, with this due to resuming following the elections in May 2025. When looking at the data regarding the market stalls, it was noted that whilst Saturday market reported above target, this was due to the supporting event program and an additional four antique traders who had registered to continue trading on the Saturday Market. Therefore, whilst the measure was reporting above its target, it remained in the performance improvement plan alongside the Tuesday market measure. Members were directed to page 51 of their papers for a full breakdown of all stalls per week and the dates on which the farmers markets were held in order to clarify the weeks which were impacted.

Finally, Members were advised that, in relation to services held at the Lea Fields Crematorium, the measure that looked at the percentage of direct cremations had reported below target for two consecutive quarters. It was explained, however, that this reflected an improved position and could not be taken in isolation. For those reasons, it was proposed that for the 2025/26 measure set, all service types be included in line with the business plan targets.

The Chairman thanked the Officer for her clear summary of the report and invited comments from Members. With relation to the T24 savings, it was enquired whether the savings were all located within the ‘Corporate Health’ section, to which Members heard that whilst the measure sat under Corporate Health, the savings had been across the organisation. It was confirmed that non-delivery of the indicated savings would not have impact the overall budgets, however it was important to look for savings options where feasible.

A Member of the Committee voiced his concern that the collection rates had been removed from the performance improvement plan, enquiring whether it was in fact an issue that was likely to worsen over time. It was explained that the measure was still monitored closely and would be reported on as needed.

With no further comments or questions, and having been proposed, seconded, and voted upon, it was

RESOLVED that the performance of the Council’s services had been assessed through agreed performance measures and areas where improvements should be made, having regard to the remedial measures set out in the report, had been indicated.