Agenda item

The Leader submitted a report on performance indicators that the Council was required to monitor and publish annually in the Annual Report.  The report advised Members of estimated performance for 2010/11 and the targets for the next three years.

The Government had announced a number of changes to reduce bureaucracy and central government burdens and to save money.  In the light of this, East Herts Council would retain a performance framework reflective of local priorities and concerns.

Officers had undertaken a review of the basket of indicators and had proposed a refined list, reducing the set from 143 to 86.  As Services have re-evaluated their day-to-day functions/operations to focus resources and service delivery on core priority areas and be customer focused, the performance indicators have been chosen to reflect this.

Members considered the report and raised a number of concerns.

Councillor N C Poulton asked that the PIs proposed  by the Task and Finish Group for Planning Enforcement and currently under a 1 year ‘trial’ be included once they were finalised and Officers undertook to do this.

Councillors J Hedley and R Gilbert asked about targets for employing people with disabilities.  Officers assured them this was carefully monitored.

Councillor N C Poulton also queried the lack of difference between “target” and “stretch target” figures in the report.  It was explained that the heading “stretch targets”, i.e. more aspirational targets, had been included when the economic situation had been more favourable than currently.

Members expressed disappointment that information from the Place Survey would no longer be available to give information on residents’ views and perceptions, e.g. on care for the elderly and participation in sport.  However, they acknowledged the need to focus on areas the District could affect directly.  It was pointed out that the Council’s Residents’ Survey was carried out every two years and any question thought important enough could be considered for inclusion within that exercise.  However, without the national Place Survey, these figures would stand in isolation as there would be no comparison with other authorities.

The Joint Committees decided to make the comments detailed below to the Executive.

RESOLVED -  that the Executive be informed that the Joint Scrutiny Committees have the following comments on the 2010/11 Estimates and future targets: 

(A)  the estimates for 2010/11 be noted;

(B)      the refined list of performance indicators that are either being retained or deleted (paragraph 1.7 of the report now submitted) should be approved by the Executive;

(C)      no further resources should be invested to improve the potential 2010/11 outturn position in order to meet current targets, as detailed at paragraphs 3.3, 3.4 and 4.2 of the report now submitted;

(D)      the targets set out in paragraph 5.1 – 5.3 of the report submitted to either improve, reduce or retain performance should be approved by the Executive;

(E)      the adoption of the new local measures set out in paragraph 6.1 of the report submitted (including those arising from the Task and Finish Group on Planning Enforcement) should be supported by the Executive;

(F)       the data quality spot checks that are currently being undertaken, as detailed at paragraph 7.3 of the report be noted;

(G)      the fact that unit cost indicators are not included in the list of PI estimates and targets, as detailed at paragraph 8.1 of the report, be noted; and

(H)      the changes to the 2009/10 performance outturns for the leisure performance indicators, as detailed at paragraph 9.1 - 9.3 of the report, be noted.