Agenda item

To consider a report of the Leader of the Council.

The Annual Corporate Performance and Resource Report (CPRR) provides a summary of progress in delivering the Council’s priority outcomes and budget since mid-year, with a particular focus on the fourth and final quarter of 2018/19 (January to March 2019).

As previously agreed, these reports are focused around highlights and exceptions, so are significantly reduced in length. This ‘light touch’ approach is being used across all Portfolio and Corporate Reports from 2019/20 onwards.

A key element of this approach is reducing duplication across and within the reports. Hyperlinks to the seven published PPRRs are therefore included in the CPRR, whilst a comprehensive update on the Corporate Risk Register was considered by Audit Committee in February.

National and regional policy drivers are summarised from those highlighted within the PPRRs. The most recent update on the Implementation Plan and Performance Dashboard for the Greater Manchester Strategy was considered by the Committee alongside the Annual Reform & Governance Portfolio report at the last meeting of the Committee on 4th June.

As this is the first report under the new Leader and Cabinet, the Leader’s Report is now subsumed within the CPRR introduction. At the suggestion of the Committee, in-year updates on complaints will be incorporated within the new Citizen Focus & Engagement mid-year and third quarter portfolio reports, with a separate Annual Report being presented to Committee.

This report was considered and approved by Cabinet on 18 June.  

Scrutiny Committee is asked to:

·           consider the Annual Report;  

·           review the progress against delivering corporate objectives, key projects, priority outcomes, targets and budgets during 2018/19;

·           highlight key areas of and responsibility for taking forward corrective action to address any performance or resource issues;

·           identify how areas of strong performance and good practice can be shared in other services.

Officer contact: Michael Cullen / Holly Rae, 474 4631 / 3014, michael.cullen@stockport.gov.uk / holly.rae@stockport.gov.uk

The Deputy Chief Executive submitted the Annual Corporate Performance and Resource Report (copies of which had been circulated) providing the Scrutiny Committee with a summary of progress in delivering the Council’s priority outcomes and budget since mid-year, with a particular focus on the fourth and final quarter of 2018/19 (January to March 2019). The report had been considered and approved by Cabinet on 18 June.

The Leader of the Council (Councillor Elise Wilson) and the Cabinet Member for Resources, Commissioning & Governance (Councillor Tom McGee) attended the meeting to response to questions.

The following comments were made/ issues raised:-

·         Comment was sought on why  there was deteriorating performance despite the achievement of a budget surplus. In response it was stated that against some measures there would be spikes in performance that were due to particular circumstances, such as the opening of Redrock and the improvement in performance against job creation measures, but that these were not replicable every year. Significantly, the pressures on adult and children’s services were impacting on overall performance levels. In relation to surpluses it was commented that these could be generated in differing ways, but where appropriate this would be factored into future budgeting, helping to reduce future savings targets or to offset borrowing. Surpluses generated would be used for investment in service reform or to meet cost pressures in other areas.

·         Comment was sought on whether the Cabinet was concerned by the deteroriation in performance. In response the issue was acknowledged but performance needed to be seen in the connect of unprecedented demand on adult and children’s services, reflected nationally, and the anticipated green paper from the government on adult social care funding. It was further commented that the new arrangements for performance monitoring should provide earlier indentification of deteroriating performance and allow for more timely action.  

·          Given the prevailing economic uncertainty, particularly in relation to high street retailing, comment was sought on the likely impact on business rate income from potential job loses in the Town Centre. In response it was stated that business rate liability was connected to property, regardless of occupancy, so was not dependent on levels of employment in retail. Nevertheless, the volatility in business rates was emphasised, particularly if landlords chose to change the use class of their assets. It was hoped that the Autumn Comprehensive Spending Review would provide clarity on future business rate retention by local authorities.

·         Assurances were sought that the Council was doing all it could to maximise new business start-ups in Stockport. In response the bredth of activity was emphasised, and comment made that performance set out in the report did not include the Produce Hall activity.

·         It was commented that there had been no fixed penalties issued for dog fouling.

·         Comment was sought on what the Leader fo the Council was doing to ensure the availability of appropriate commercial space in Stockport. The Leader responded by reiterating earlier comments about job creation and regeneration activity, citing examples such as Stockport Exchange, Merseyway and the Mayoral Development Corporation. The Leader expressed confidence in continued business interest in Stockport.

·         Concern was expressed about some targets not having a source of data to measure performance. In response it was stated that there were examples of data sources changing after targets had been set, making tracking more problematic, but assurance was given that the new performance management arrangements would allow for greater narrative information being provided to explains this.

·         Comment was made that the use of three year rolling averages in future reporting would assist in overcoming challenges of measuring performance against annualised statistics.

·         Comment was sought about whether the Council was ensuring developers were meeting their obligations to provide affordable homes. In response it was commented that performance was often misleading as affordable units were not made available in a steady stream but intermittently as developments were finished. The upward trend in the number of unitys should give confidence in the approach being taken. At the Communities & Housing Scrutiny Committee there had been discussion about the need to modify the target to better capture information about homes ‘in the pipeline’ to give a clearly impression of activity.

The Chair reiterated concerns raised previously about some ‘targets’ simply being measures of activity. She also suggested that further consideration was needed about how to avoid duplication between monitoring activity of differing scrutiny committees. In response, the Cabinet Member for Resources, Commissioning & Governance stated a willingness to discuss any concerns about performance monitoring with the Scrutiny Co-ordination Committee.

RESOLVED – That the report be noted.