Appendix 2
Key to performance ratings
Direction |
|
|
Performance has improved |
|
Performance has been sustained |
|
Performance has declined |
N/A |
No previous data to compare |
RAG Rating |
|
|
Target not achieved |
|
Target slightly missed (within 10%) |
|
Target met |
|
Data Only |
Performance Summary
RAG Rating |
Green |
Amber |
Red |
N/A[1] |
Total |
KPIs |
1 |
2 |
1 |
2 |
6 |
Direction |
Up |
No Change |
Down |
N/A |
Total |
Last Year |
1 |
|
2 |
3 |
6 |
Last Quarter |
3 |
1 |
2 |
|
6 |
- 25% (1) targetable quarterly Key Performance Indicators (KPI), reportable to SPI, achieved its Quarter 2 target.
- Only one PI can be given a direction
of travel in relation to 2018/19.
, aAs this PI is for information only this indicates an increase in volume rather than an improvement.
- 50% (2) of the targeted KPIs are showing an improvement in performance compared to Quarter 1 this year. One information only KPI shows an increase in volume compared to the previous period.
Embracing growth and enabling infrastructure
Performance Indicator |
Q2 2019/20 |
||||
Value |
Target |
Status |
Long Trend |
Short Trend |
|
Percentage of priority 1 enforcement cases dealt with in time |
100% |
100% |
|
N/A |
|
Percentage of priority 2 enforcement cases dealt with in time |
95.42% |
100% |
|
N/A |
|
Total number of complaints received within period |
236 |
|
|
N/A |
|
Success rate for planning appeals (6mth rolling) |
59.09% |
75% |
|
|
|
Number of appeals in period |
44 |
|
|
|
|
Number of affordable homes delivered (gross) |
42 |
45 |
|
|
|
Of the four targeted indicators for this priority, one (25%) has achieved its quarterly target, two (50%) have marginally missed their targets (within 10%) and the last indicator has missed the Quarter 2 target by more than 10%. There are three PIs which can be given a long trend, comparing the data for Quarter 2 this year with that for Quarter 2 in 2018/19; of these, one is showing an increase in the number of appeals received (this neither positive nor negative but provides contextual information about volumes). The other two PIs where a long trend can be calculated show a decline in performance compared to 2018/19. When performance for this quarter is compared to that of Quarter 1 (2019/20), three PIs show improvement, two show a decline and for one there was no change.
While all six Priority 1 Planning Enforcement cases were dealt with in accordance with timescales, the percentage of Priority 2 Enforcement cases dealt with in time has marginally missed the quarterly target. Performance has improved marginally for this indicator compared to Quarter 1. There were six cases which went out of time out of a total of 131. Of the six that were out of time, visits were made within 24 hours to three days. However, the complainant wasn’t notified until up to 7 days later.
The success rate for Planning Appeals for the Council for the first half of the year is 59.09%; this is significantly below the target of 75%. During this period there were 44 Appeals that were considered. The Development Control Manager reports that the dip in performance relates to cases considered between April and June 2019, where 8 out of 22 cases were won by the Council. Some of these applications were Gypsy and Traveller applications which were overturned on appeal. Performance between July and September 2019 shows the Council was successful in 18 out of 22 appeals, which equates to an 82% success rate for this period.
The number of Affordable Houses delivered has marginally missed the annual target. This is not a concern as some programmes were delivered slightly earlier with an overachievement of the target in Quarter 1. Overall, 114 Affordable Homes have been delivered for the year to date against a target of 180; it is expected that the annual target will be achieved.
[1] PIs rated N/A are not included in the summery calculations
* Indicates data that has not been authorised