To review the Council’s key performance indicators and make recommendations to the Cabinet.

The Cabinet Member for Tourism, Culture & Events and Corporate Services, Councillor Jackie Thomas, outlined the submitted performance monitoring report for quarter 3 2025/2026 and responded to questions.  Other Cabinet Members and Directors also attended the meeting to respond to questions.

The Board asked questions in relation to BP19 the call centre reported an improvement and had recruited two extra call handlers, how many call handlers do we have and what consideration was given to the programming of communications/mailings e.g. single person discount letters and the impact on capacity of the call centre (a written response would be provided); BP20 the target for Community Fund Spent was 20.6% against a target of 80%, what was the reason for this and was there a dedicated person responsible for co-ordinating the Fund; was there a breakdown of the adult figures of people needing safe housing for escaping domestic abuse particularly LGBTQ+ (a written response would be provided to this question); the report covers data up to December, was there an update on the take up figures for MyBay, including those who have received the free card for Carers (it was noted that take up had been good from Carers and it was also helping the Council to identify people who were Carers, a written response would be provided); there were 648 open enforcement cases compared to a target of 450, the Overview and Scrutiny Board has previously done a deep dive into this area, how confident was the Cabinet that the Council was moving towards the 450 target; what was the reason for BP04 percentage of contacts to Children’s Services progressing to early help services in the period being much worse than target; BP47 percentage of weed spraying schedule due achieved during the period was much worse than target, what was the reason for this and had it been impacted by the amount of leaves in the gutters; nine out of thirteen targets for the Planning Department were much worse than target, to what extent was that due to long term sickness and how would this be alleviated; and CP14 percentage of former cared for children who are now aged 19-21 and in employment, education or training was much worse than target, what were the actual numbers and what were the numbers for those who were not former cared for children (a written response would be provided).

In response to questions around the Community Fund, Members were advised that there was a nominated person but part of the delay was due to the delay in applications being submitted, some Councillors waited for the money to be rolled over to a future year to fund larger projects.  It was accepted that some delays were due to a lot of the work involving SWISCo staff who were busy on other projects over the Summer with a lot of works being carried out towards the end of the financial year.  Members expressed frustration over the amount of time that some of the projects took to be implemented and hoped that the outcome of the play park strategy would assist and also encourage Councillors to use their funds to help draw down match funding for projects in their Wards.

Members received an update on the current staffing position, including the recruitment of additional staff, as well as the action taken by the Enforcement Team to develop new processes to streamline the process and implement the revised Enforcement Policy.  It was reported that five cases had been closed that day and there was a real drive and emphasis to close outstanding cases and work towards the set target.

The Board was informed that BP04 was much worse than target due to children not progressing through the Family Hubs in the same way they had previously done.  Assurance was given that children were not being missed.  An Early Help portal was up and running and instead of referrals coming through the Multi Agency Safeguarding Hub (MASH), which could stigmatise people, they were self-referring.  There had been an issue with the data from the system which was being evaluated to ensure that correct data was being used.

Members were advised that there had previously been an issue with the electric quad bikes but that should have been addressed.  There had also been a lot of wet weather and there needed to be a certain amount of dry time for the weed spray to be effective.  There was more detritus in the gutters due to insufficient amount of spraying but more should be removed using the new ripping kit.  A more detailed written response on BP47 would be provided.

In response to questions around the Planning Service performance, Members were advised that around 60% of all applications that were received had to go back to the applicant as they were not right.  There had been training for members of the Planning Team and developers to raise awareness of what was required so that applications could be right first time.  The applications were only validated once they were deemed to be complete.  Engagement had been carried out with agents, architects and planning consultants to help them understand the information required to be submitted, without the need to advertise revised plans.  Members noted that there had been periods of sickness but a new Planning Officer was starting in March and existing temporary staff had their contract extended.  Processes had been streamlined but there would always be fluctuations month to month.

Resolved (unanimously):

That the Director of Corporate Services be requested to liaise with the Managing Director of SWISCo on how the process for streamlining Community Ward projects can be achieved to enable projects to be implemented sooner and if extra resource is required to achieve this.