The Strategy and Performance Officer introduced the report which provided an update in regards to performance against the Corporate Scorecard 2015-16, a basket of key performance indicators, as at Month 3/Quarter 1 i.e. end of June 2015.  The Committee were advised that at the end of Month 3, 72.5% of these indicators were either meeting or within an acceptable tolerance of their target.

The Strategy and Performance Officer presented a detailed PowerPoint presentation to Members which set out the performance of indicators which Performance Board had put ‘in focus’ in the current quarter for being below target, and therefore were ‘Red.’

During the presentation a detailed discussion took place, during which the following key points were highlighted:

·         Councillor Hebb stated that Thurrock should not make any apology for setting high targets in relation to the percentage of ‘Good’ Primary Schools, and felt that without setting such a high target the number of good primary schools would not have increased by as much as they had done.

·         Councillor Snell questioned whether schools could become despondent with a such high target set and felt that those ‘Good’ schools who had converted to academy status or merged should have been included in the figures so as not to skew the results.

·         Councillor Hebb recognised that the percentage of planning applications processed within 8 or 13 weeks was a service led target, and although welcomed the positive trajectory, explained that he gave more weight to the quality of work rather than the speediness of processing the application, particularly in relation to larger planning applications.

·         Councillor Hebb questioned how the target of the number of apprentices employed by the Council was set and asked officers to investigate.

·         The Committee recognised that Thurrock faced particular challenges in relation to self-directed support and the number of people at home following hospital discharge and that the service faced significant financial challenges.

·         In relation to recycling rates, Councillor Hebb asked whether the geographical areas had been identified where the most contaminated loads originated from, and if communication could be targeted in these areas to mitigate the volume of contaminated waste.

·         Councillor Liddiard questioned why the volume of complaints had increased and whether trends could be identified by service area, in response it was explained that the Information Manager held detailed information on trends by service area in order to learn from complaints.

·         Councillor Hebb questioned what other accreditations the authority could undertake to demonstrate performance against the priority of a ‘well-run organisation.’ In response the Head of HR, OD & Transformation explained that Thurrock achieved the Public Service Network Accreditation Standard but would evaluate what other accreditations the authority could partake in.

·         Councillor Liddiard asked for clarification regarding data security breaches, to which it was explained that this information was detailed in other reports referred to Standards and Audit Committee, as this fell under their remit.

RESOLVED:

1.         That Corporate Overview & Scrutiny Committee consider and comment upon the performance at this early stage in the year and identifies, where it feels necessary, any further areas of concern on which to focus.

2.         That Corporate Overview & Scrutiny Committee consider whether the areas In Focus need to be circulated as appropriate to other Overview and Scrutiny Committee Chairs.