Agenda item

The Scrutiny and Overview Committee received and noted a report providing it with details of proposed performance reporting arrangements for the 2019-20 financial year. The report also contained the South Cambridgeshire District Council’s Quarter 1 position regarding its operational key performance indicators (KPI).

Householder planning applications

The Chairman exercised his discretion so that Councillor Peter Topping could establish the basis upon which, as summarised in a recent e-mail to Members, a process was being developed that would allow some planning applications to be validated and progressed by an outside company.

Councillor Dr. Tumi Hawkins, the Lead Cabinet Member for Planning, emphasised that the measure offered an opportunity to bring in additional resources to support the processing of minor household planning applications. The Joint Director of Planning and Economic Development highlighted the fact that the lack of resources within the Greater Cambridge Shared Planning Service (GCSPS) had been identified as a risk within South Cambridgeshire District Council’s Strategic Risk Register. He referred to the challenges faced in recruiting appropriately qualified planning officers, drawing attention to the high level of vacancies in the service and the difficulty in engaging agency staff which, in any event, was costly to the Council.  For those reasons, the alternative option had been pursued of entering into a contract to provide additional capacity to assist in the validation stage for household applications, for subsequent review by case officers employed by the Council.  The Joint Director commented that a similar option had been pursued in 2014 when external resources had been used to support a range of functions within South Cambridgeshire District Council’s planning section.  The Committee noted the following:

·         A national campaign was underway to recruit new staff

·         Current planning officers would shortly transfer to new roles with revised job descriptions

·         Investment in new ICT would promote efficiency

·         Some planning officers were currently processing applications up to 50% above the national average and, with many of these requiring difficult and complex decisions, there were implications for staff well-being

Although the GCSPS had been meeting its targets for determining applications (as indicated in the Quarter 1 performance report before the Committee), it had also been receiving complaints about elements of that performance and the communication with customers and residents. 

The Joint Director of Planning and Economic Development confirmed that the Council had undertaken a formal tendering process and that a contract with the successful service provider could be managed within existing budgets. The cost was competitive and cheaper than using agency staff. The contract would provide capacity for validation and assessment of simple applications. The Committee was assured that decision-making would remain in-house. The contract was for four months and the Joint Director of Planning and Economic Development outlined the type of monitoring that would take place. The decision to secure additional validation and application assessment capacity from a service provider fell within the remit of operational management under the Council’s officer scheme of delegation.  

While recognising that GCSPS had severe capacity issues, and that the arrangement was short-term only, some Members were concerned that such a measure did little in the way of addressing the underlying challenge. They were also concerned that the service would be delivered by an external provider which did not have knowledge and understanding of the local area and might not be available to respond to customers’ enquiries.  They expressed concern that the decision to place the work externally had been taken by the Joint Director without prior consultation or discussion with Members, most notably members of the Planning Committee, and that it was unsatisfactory to be notified about the decision by email after the decision had been taken.  Other Members acknowledged that it was important to act to address the challenges currently being faced by the GCSPS to improve service delivery and seek to try to achieve reasonable individual officer caseloads. The Joint Director of Planning and Economic Development responded to a number of questions raised by Members, and assured the Committee that:-

·         Liaison would take place with the external service provider regarding the opportunity for engagement with customers in relation to their applications

·         The external provider would be appropriately briefed on relevant South Cambridgeshire and local issues, background and context

·         Consultation would take place with the Lead Cabinet Member and, if appropriate, Cabinet, before any decision was taken to extend the four month contract

·         There was capacity and capability within the GCSPS to deliver an effective and efficient client monitoring function in respect of the contract

While recognising the factors behind the Joint Director’s decision, and having noted the assurances given to Members, the Scrutiny and Overview Committee nonetheless emphasised the importance of proper monitoring and management of the contract to make sure that service of an appropriate standard was delivered to the Council’s customers.  The Joint Director indicated that it was likely that the Council would be dealing with named individuals at the external provider, who would quickly appreciate the culture of South Cambridgeshire. The Committee should receive a report on the Planning Service in November 2019 and this would give Members the opportunity to assess how the externalised service was functioning. The Joint Director of Planning and Economic Development concluded by emphasising that the external provider would supplement rather than replace the Council’s own capability.

Housing Advice

In respect of Performance Indicator AH215 (percentage of successful homeless preventions as a proportion of all homeless prevention / relief cases closed), the Scrutiny and Overview Committee noted that the data contained in the report was inaccurate.  That data had been reviewed and an updated document, explaining the methodology for obtaining the data, had been tabled at the meeting.  The Committee noted that, based on the revised data, the performance against the indicator was now rated as “green” meaning that the risk was being managed successfully.

With reference to Performance Indicator AH212, the Committee Chairman questioned why the spending on bed and breakfast accommodate appeared to have risen so sharply in June.  However, no response was available at the meeting and he suggested that Cabinet might wish to consider further the reason for this apparent marked increase.

Corporate Services / Shared Waste Service,

The Committee sought to establish further information on the data behind Performance Indicator FS125 (Staff sickness days per Full Time Equivalent (FTE) staff member excluding Shared Waste Services Staff) and Performance Indicator SF786a (Staff sickness days per FTE (Shared Waste Service) noting, in particular, that in the latter case, the majority of the sickness figures were attributed to musculo skeletal causes.  The Interim Corporate Services Director provided further details to the Committee on the actions being taken to support managers at the depot to manage sickness absence and referrals to occupational health. Scrutiny and Overview Committee members again asked for variance data to be provided as part of the performance monitoring results reporting, noting, for example, that results on sickness absence could be skewed significantly by instances of long term sickness.