Contact your Parish Council

MAIDSTONE BOROUGH COUNCIL

 

CORPORATE SERVICES OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY COMMITTEE

 

7 AUGUST 2012

 

REPORT OF HEAD OF CHANGE & SCRUTINY

 

 

Report prepared by Clare Wood 

 

 

1.           ANNUAL  PERFORMANCE REPORT

 

1.1        Issue for Decision

 

1.1.1   To consider the draft out-turns for the 2011/12 Key Performance Indicators (KPIs).

 

1.2        Recommendation of Head of Change & Scrutiny

 

1.2.1   It is recommended that the Committee:

 

a)   Note the Performance Out-turns for 2011-15 at Appendix A; and

 

b)   Consider if any further action is required.

 

1.3        Performance Out-turns 2011/12

 

1.3.1   Since 2009 Cabinet have received quarterly monitoring reports with year to date information. This level of detail is now included in the annual performance report to allow trends and fluctuations in data to be seen.

 

1.3.2   There were 58 key performance indicators (KPIs) agreed in the Strategic Plan 2011-15 for 2011/12, overall 63% of KPIs achieved the annual target set and for 57% of indicators performance improved. In 2010/11 66% of the targets were met and 54% of indicators had improved.

 

1.3.3   In terms of the Strategic Plan Outcomes, performance has been strong for the clean and attractive place to live and residents are not disadvantaged outcomes but weaker for the outcome a growing economy with rising unemployment. It is clear that the economic climate and service changes have impacted on performance, for example, there have been lower numbers of planning applications received and more people presenting as homeless. It is good to see that despite the economic situation the Council has maintained performance and continued to ensure outcomes are achieved particularly in the area of residents and disadvantage.

 

1.4        Performance Summary

 

1.4.1   Performance Against Target for Outcomes

 

Performance against target	On Target	Missed target (within 10%)	Target not achieved	N/A²	Total
Transport Network	2 (50%)	2 (50%)	0	1	5
Growing Economy	6 (50%)	3 (25%)	3 (25%)	1	13
Decent Affordable Housing	4 (50%)	3 (38%)	1 (12%)	3	11
Clean & Attractive Environment	7 (88%)	1 (12%)	0	3	11
Residents are not disadvantaged	7 (88%)	1 (12%)	0	0	8
Value for Services residents satisfied with	5 (56%)	3 (33%)	1 (11%)	1	10
Total	31 (63%)	13 (27%)	5 (10%)	9	58

 

1.4.2   Direction of Travel

 

Direction of Travel	Improved	Declined	N/A²	Total
Transport Network	0	3 (100%)	2	5
Growing Economy	4 (40%)	6 (60%)	3	13
Decent Affordable Housing	2 (29%)	5 (71%)	4	11
Clean & Attractive Environment	6 (75%)	2 (25%)	3	11
Residents are not disadvantaged	6 (86%)	1 (14%)	1	8
Value for Services residents satisfied with	7 (78%)	2 (22%)	1	10
Total	25 (57%)	19 (43%)	14	58

 

Strong Performance

 

1.4.3   The number of vacant units in the town centre has reduced (LVE 003); this demonstrates that Maidstone is still considered a good place to work and shop. Supporting this is an increase in bus usage (PKG 008) and an increase in the income from pay and display car parks (PKG 002). The Locate in Maidstone website received 6195 enquires from companies and individuals about moving to Maidstone. 

 

1.4.4   The Council is making good progress in relation to decent and affordable housing; delivering 284 affordable homes (HSG 001) and making 205 homes occupied by vulnerable people decent (HSG 002) in 2011/12. In addition, 92.33%* of all new homes were built on previously developed land (SPT 004). 

 

1.4.5   The cleanliness of Maidstone has improved during 2011/12, with a reduction in the percentage of litter and detritus. Last year the Council rolled out area based cleaning which is prioritised according to  need, which may have contributed to this improvement. The Council has achieved the 2012/13 target for recycling a year early with an annual out-turn of 45%, this puts the authority in the upper median compared to all English authorities. The amount of residual waste has also reduced significantly by 150kg per household.

 

1.4.6   The Council carried out a resident’s satisfaction survey in December 2011 in order to learn more about what our residents thought of the Council, their priorities and Maidstone as a place to live. Overall satisfaction with the way the Council runs things, gathered through the resident’s survey has improved significantly. Performance jumped from 44% in 2009 to 63%, with age groups 18-34 and 75+ being the most satisfied. The results of the survey also  showed that residents continue to be satisfied with the doorstep recycling facilities provided (WCN 003) with satisfaction increasing from 51% in 2009 to 78% for 2012. It should be noted that respondents from rural areas were more satisfied with the doorstep recycling service than respondents from urban area.

 

1.4.7   The borough’s parks and open spaces are thriving with increased satisfaction of 78% (PKS 002). The improvements to Mote Park also appear to be going down well as end of year data shows that there has been a 16% increase in footfall at Mote Park compared to 2010/11.

 

Areas where targets were not achieved

 

 

1.4.8    In April it was announced that the UK is now back in recession, with no growth there are very few jobs being created, which has meant that the target for reducing the number of people claiming job seekers allowance has not been achieved, despite this Maidstone is performing better than the national average of 4.9% and is 5^th out the Kent authorities.

 

1.4.9   Another measure that provides a picture of economic health is the supply of ready to occupy completions (LVE 006), which shows that office space has been lost and the overall value of business ratable space has reduced. However; the High Street regeneration project is due to be completed in June 2012 and already there has been interest shown by businesses, this alongside the fact that there were fewer vacant retail units in 2011/12 than 2010/11 demonstrates that Maidstone is still considered a good place to visit and shop. 

 

1.4.10                The reduction in resources in planning has led to eddrddddThe percentage of residential planning applications processed within timeframe did not achieve the annual target and performance has declined from 2010/11. Overall performance within development control remains high (with 90% of all planning applications determined within time) by national standards, a point picked up in the recent Peer Group Review. Specific issues relate to Parish call-ins of items to the Planning Committee, resilience/specific performance issues and the need for s106 Agreements for residential developments of 10 and over. With the exception of the parish council point, these issues are planned to be addressed this business year.

 

1.4.11                The Council carried out a resident’s satisfaction survey in December 2011 in order to ascertain a public assessment of satisfaction with the Council and how we run our services. The methodology of this survey was based on the Place Survey so that previous results would be comparable. However; despite an increase in satisfaction with the Leisure Centre the annual target was not achieved. This is disappointing as alternative data sources show that there has been an increase in memberships and user satisfaction. When the survey is repeated in 2013 the direction of travel will be clearer for this indicator.    

 

1.5        Alternative Action and why not Recommended

 

1.5.1  Previously the Local Authority had a duty to produce a Best Value  Performance Plan setting out the annual out-turns for all performance indicators and  targets for the next three years. In 2009 this duty was removed it is still considered best practice to produced an annual performance report as well as set and publish targets for the next three years.

 

1.6        Impact on Corporate Objectives

 

1.6.1   The Key Performance Indicators are part of the Council’s overarching Strategic Plan 2011-15 and play an important role in the achievement of corporate objectives. Other Performance Indicators cover a wide range of service and priority areas for example waste and recycling, customer contact, planning and costs.

 

1.7        Risk Management

 

1.7.1   The production of a robust performance plan contributes to minimising risks, good data quality and improving use of resources.

 

1.8        Other Implications

 

1.8.1    

1.      Financial	X
2.           Staffing	X
3.           Legal
4.           Equality Impact Needs Assessment
5.           Environmental/Sustainable Development	X
6.           Community Safety	X
7.           Human Rights Act
8.           Procurement
9.           Asset Management	X

         Financial

 

 

1.8.2   The financial implications of any proposed changes are also identified and taken into account in the Council’s budget setting process with issues highlighted as part of the budget monitoring reporting process.

 

Staffing

 

1.8.3   Having a clear set of measures enables staff outcomes/objectives to be set and effective action plans to be put in place.

 

Environmental/Sustainable Development, Community Safety and Procurement

 

1.8.4   The performance indicators cover and are used to monitor a number of priority areas.

 

1.9        Relevant Documents

 

·         Strategic Plan 2011-15

·         Annual Performance Report 2010/11

 

1.9.1   Appendices

 

·         Appendix A - Annual Performance Report 2011/12

 

 

 

 

IS THIS A KEY DECISION REPORT? X     Yes                                               No     If yes, when did it first appear in the Forward Plan?   ..     This is a Key Decision because: ..   .       Wards/Parishes affected: ..   ..