Agenda item

A report of the Strategic Director, Environmental and Corporate Services providing Quarter 3 performance monitoring information.

Considered a report of the Strategic Director, Environmental and Corporate Services providing Quarter 3 performance monitoring information (item 6 on this agenda filed with the minutes).

Assisting with consideration of the report: Cabinet Lead Member for Private Housing, Head of Landlord Services, Head of Strategic and Private Sector Housing, Organisational Change Officer.

Summary, key points of discussion:

·         report was presented by Organisational Change Officer.  Noted variances in RAG rating compared to Quarter 2, 11 completed.  COVID summary was a reduced update but still activity to report due to Omicron.

·         provision of predicted Q3 data and lack of additional commentary for % household waste sent for reuse, recycling and composting (KI 4) / residual household waste per household (NI 191), was due to a delay in receiving data and was an estimate from the Head of Service.   The data for Q2 was retrospectively added to the report for Q3 and this would occur again for Q4 report. These were the only corporate indicators where predicted data was supplied.

·         targets were being exceeded by a relatively significant margin for some indicators, review was ongoing for 2022-23 by each Head of Service, looking at current performance and benchmarking with other LAs.

·         KI 11 – the additional narrative was welcomed, but still significant concerns regarding the % rent loss and number of voids; there didn’t appear to be a sense of urgency and action was needed.  If non-sheltered accommodation and sheltered accommodation data were separated into two indicators, it was clear that sheltered accommodation turnaround times was impacting on the overall target and that general needs at 2.99% would be within tolerance. Challenges included age designation criteria, residents’ preferences and staff resources.  The Sheltered Housing Review Board and project plan had been set to decide on the future of the schemes and what works were required to bring them up to a ‘fit for purpose’ standard.

·         was the Housing Strategy still appropriate? Consider selling off sheltered accommodation?  In response the Board had a vision for future accommodation to meet the changing demographics and aspirations of residents of the Borough, with 14 current schemes under review on demand basis. A report would be submitted to the Cabinet outlining the review, the prioritisation of schemes and for the Thurmaston sheltered scheme.  The delays were currently caused by lack of resources with posts currently out for recruitment.  Age designated criteria work had begun, and ant changes to current designations would require Cabinet approval.  The matter had been added to the workplan of the Housing Management Advisory Board as part of the consultation process.

·         views expressed that assets no longer seemed fit for purpose and tasks should be outsourced if no internal resources available. Would cost of renovation prevent activity even if resources available? Noted all HRA investment possibilities were being considered, following completion of a stock condition survey later this year.  Recognised properties not fit for purpose and that sensitivity was required around review and renovation costs of homes, the Charnwood Decent Homes Standard impacted costs but was considered valuable to retain.  A report would be submitted to Cabinet and funding was potentially available from Homes England and Landlord Services.  Financial modelling around sheltered accommodation improvements was included in HRA Business Plan and financial assumptions would be checked and updated later in the year (following the stock condition survey).

·         reference was made to £787K rent loss and that this had steadily increased each year.  If action had been taken sooner to recoup the losses, the Council could have been able to renovate properties by now.  A member noted there seemed to be no political will to deliver.

·         unclear why delivery of the Bedford Square Gateway Project was RAG rated green when there was a known delay to the project.  Noted that corporate delivery RAG ratings were more subjective but check and challenge was in place.

Further commentary requested as follows:

·         from the Head of Planning and Regeneration for Net additional homes provided (cumulative target KI 1), in particular providing confidence around achieving the target of 828 homes by Quarter 4.

·         from the Head of Planning and Regeneration regarding direction of travel of 5 year housing supply and the backlog of housing developments.  Perception the Development Control section of the Plans Service was ‘firefighting’ and wished to be reassured that the Plans Service were also focusing on the delivery of the Local Plan and engaging with Inspectorate.

·         from the Head of Cleansing and Open Spaces for reasons why the increase of tree planting throughout the Borough was overdue (because of planting in Hathern?)

·         from the Head of Cleansing and Open Spaces for reasons why KI 4 a/b anticipated a 5% decrease in recycling rate.

·         from the Head of Planning and Regeneration as to why the Bedford Square Gateway Project was RAG rated green.

It was explained that when Heads of Service were not available to answer queries in the meeting, response would be sought the meeting and once received would be circulated to all members of the Committee and any substitute members present at this meeting.

RESOLVED that the Committee notes the performance results: associated commentary and the explanations provided.

Reason

To ensure that targets and objectives are being met, and to identify areas where performance might be improved.