Agenda item

Michelle Hoyles, Business Manager – Corporate Policy and Transformation:

a)    presented a report to Performance Scrutiny Committee with an outturn summary of the council’s performance in Quarter 1 of 2023/24

b)    explained that the full report was attached as Appendix A of the report, with the full list of performance measure outturns and supporting performance commentary provided at Appendix B of the report

c)    invited members’ comments and questions.

The committee discussed the report in detail and asked the following questions, it was agreed that answers would be provided from the relevant officers following the meeting:

·         Referred to the performance indicator  “cumulative long term sickness per FTE (excluding apprentices)”and commented that it was concerning the number of days lost due to stress or depression. How many days were lost due to work related stress compared to personal stress?

·          Why was the number of days lost due to short term sickness much higher for apprentices?

·         Referred to the two performance indicators “number of calls logged to IT helpdesk” and percentage of first time fixes” . Why were these recorded as a volumetric?

·         Referred to the performance indicator “ Number of properties ‘not decent’ as a result of tenants refusing to allow work (excluding refusals)”  Would it be possible to find out who in Abbey Ward was refusing work? Were there follow ups when people refused work? Could a target be set instead of volumetric?

·         Referred to the performance indicator “ Number of properties ‘not decent’ as a result of tenants refusing to allow work (excluding refusals)”  Did this include where a property didn’t need work for example a new kitchen was not needed following inspection or was this included in a sperate performance indicator?

·         Referred to the performance indicator “percentage of waste recycled or composted (seasonal)” and commented that this was persistently low. Had there been an increase in the percentage of recycling for the areas in Lincolnshire that had been provided with bins for card and paper?

Members of the committee asked the following questions and received relevant responses from Officers:

Question: Expressed concern that the percentage of appraisals completed was low at 18.5%. Appraisals were important and could prevent long term sickness. What steps were being taking to improve the number of appraisals completed?

Response: Appraisals were important and were raised at the monthly Departmental Management Team meeting. The system had changed recently which had affected the figures. Previously appraisals were completed between April and June. This was taking time out of the organisation so the system had been changed to appraisals being completed on the anniversary of joining the Council. 

Question: Had there been feedback from Managers on why appraisals had not been completed?

Response: It was not due to a reluctance to complete appraisals, it was because of the day to day pressures of work and finding the capacity to complete them.

Question: Could interim appraisals take place throughout the year which would flag any performance issues?

Response: One to ones took place on a monthly basis. Consideration could be given to splitting up appraisals so that they were not such an intense piece of work.

Question: What were the changes that were due to be implemented that would improve the utilisation levels at the car parks?

Response: Extra electric vehicle points were being installed.

Question: Was the Central Car Park included in the Parking Services PS2 performance indicator? The Central Car Park used a chip and was not pay and display.

Response: Yes, the performance indicator included the Central Car Pack as well as the pay and display car parks. The title of the performance indicator could be changed to sessional parking.

Comment: Referred to performance indicator PPASB 4 and commented that 100% satisfaction gave a false representation as only 2 surveys were sent out from 16 cases

Response:  The new automated IT system was not picking up all of the cases, the PPASB Team had dealt with more than 16 cases during quarter 1. The IT bug was being addressed and the measure would be meaningful when more replies were received.

Question: Asked for clarification on the number of net promoter score points above or below the average net promoter score for England in relation to Yarborough and Birchwood Leisure Centres.

Response: The net promoter score was compared to the national average and enabled us to benchmark. Birchwood Leisure Centre was doing well with good satisfaction, whereas there was dissatisfaction with Yarborough Leisure Centre. There had been staffing issues in the gym and an issue with the class timetable but we would expect the score to improve next quarter.

Question: Had  the take up of green bins improved this year?

Response: There had been an increased take up but it had not reached the target.

RESOLVED that:

1.    Relevant responses to questions raised by members be provided by officers following the meeting as requested.

2. The report be noted and forwarded to Executive for approval.

3. The format of the performance report continued to meet the committee’s requirements.