Issue - meetings

REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR – RESOURCES

This report presents progress on delivering the Council Delivery Plan for 2025-26.

RESOLVED: That the Overview and Scrutiny Committee:

(1)         Provided comment on the Council Delivery Plan Quarter 1 monitoring report.

(2)         Determined any project they want to receive more detail on, as part of the next monitoring report.

RECOMMENDED TO CABINET: That Cabinet notes progress against Council projects and performance indicators, as set out in the Council Delivery Plan (Appendix A), and approves new milestones and changes to milestones.

REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATION: The Council Delivery Plan (CDP) monitoring reports provide Overview and Scrutiny Committee, and Cabinet, with an opportunity to monitor progress against the key Council projects, and understand any new issues, risks, or opportunities.

Audio recording – 3 minutes 32 seconds

Councillor Ian Albert, as Executive Member for Resources, presented the report entitled ‘Council Delivery Plan 2025-26 (Quarter 1 Update)’ and advised that:

·             In response to the Corporate Peer Challenge and the subsequent audit, the Council had been investigating how to extend Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) to focus on achieving the outcomes set out in the Council Delivery Plan (CDP).

·             These would be included in the Q2 report and smart measures would also be introduced without increasing pressure on workload.

The Director – Resources gave a verbal presentation and advised that:

·             Digital Transformation and Leisure Centre Decarbonisation were the only projects with an amber status.

·             The amber status classified projects that had missed one or more milestone dates without there being a significant impact to their delivery.

·             In Appendix A, changes to milestones and new milestones that were subject to Cabinet approval were highlighted in blue and yellow respectively.

·             Leisure Centre Decarbonisation, Churchgate, Decarbonisation of Council Buildings – Phase 2 and Local Plan Review all had a red risk level, as well as the overarching corporate risks.

·             A red risk level was present where the project had scored highly on likelihood and impact which led to a higher level of monitoring and review.

·             Three KPIs had a red status. Two of these related to Careline Installations and the other to Customer Service Centre (CSC) calls answered in 45 seconds.

·             Explanations and planned actions were detailed in paragraph 8.4 of the report. 

·             The performance indicator for the Revenue Budget KPI was +2.4%.

The following Members asked questions:

·             Councillor Jon Clayden

·             Councillor Paul Ward

·             Councillor Elizabeth Dennis

·             Councillor Claire Winchester

In response to questions, the Director – Resources advised that:

·             The red status on Careline Installations was due to resourcing issues, however, there were actions in place to address these to ensure that they would progress to a green status. 

·             KPIs on working days lost to short-term absence and staff turnover were worth measuring as they could present problems if they exceeded a certain level.

·             Both KPIs had been measured over a long period and had targets despite them not being included in the table. This error would be rectified before the report was presented to Cabinet.

·             No financial implications were expected from the Building Safety Act issues detailed within the report.

·             The due date on the milestone to provide Salex with finalised project data had not changed as ancillary works would not have a direct climate impact and as such, data could be provided before they were complete. 

·             The Leisure Centre Decarbonisation Project Manager had left their post due to a change in personal circumstances, however, the project had now entered the construction phase and would not require the same level of support that had been given by them during the project setup phase.

·             An illustrated grid for risk level scoring was included at page 22 of the report.

·             The assessment of whether the impact would be low, medium or high not only accounted for  ...  view the full minutes text for item 21