To consider a joint report of the Corporate Directors (Place) and (Corporate & Support Services).
The Mid-Year Portfolio Performance and Resource Reports (PPRRs) for the Sustainable Stockport and Inclusive Neighbourhoods Portfolios are presented for consideration by the Committee. These provide a summary of progress in delivering the portfolio priorities, reform programmes and other key projects in the first half of the year, with a particular focus on the second quarter (July to September). These include forecast performance and financial data (where this is available) for the Portfolios, along with an update on the portfolio savings programmes.
The Scrutiny Committee is recommended to:
(i) Consider the Mid-Year Portfolio Performance and Resource Reports;
(ii) Review the progress against delivering key projects, priority outcomes, targets and budgets for 2021/22;
(iii) Highlight key areas of and responsibility for taking forward corrective action to address any performance or resource issues;
(iv) Highlight any significant issues or changes to be fed back to the Cabinet alongside the Corporate Performance and Resource Report;
(v) Identify how areas of strong performance and good practice can be shared in other services.
The Corporate Director (Place) and Deputy Chief Executive submitted a report (copies of which had been circulated) providing the Mid-Year Portfolio Performance and Resource Report (PPRR) for the Inclusive Communities and Sustainable Stockport Portfolio. The report provided a summary of progress in delivering the portfolio priorities, reform programme and other key projects in the first half of the year, with a particular focus on the second quarter (July to September). The report also included a forecast on performance and financial data (where this was available) for the Portfolio, along with an update on the portfolio savings programme.
The Cabinet Members for Inclusive Communities (Councillor Amanda Peers) and Sustainable Stockport (Councillor Sheila Bailey) attended the meeting to respond to questions from the Scrutiny Committee.
The following comments were made/ issues raised:-
Inclusive Communities Portfolio
· It noted that the Stockport Local Fund did not run during quarters one and two during the current financial year and it was confirmed that any unallocated funding remaining after the relaunch of fund in Quarter three would be rolled over into the next financial year.
· In response to a query around publicity for the Stockport Armed Forces Covenant it was stated that the covenant was a pledge rather than an offer of services, and there were a number of organisations that the council worked in partnership with that provided direct support to armed forces personnel, veterans and their families. However, work was taking place to provide a consistent approach in relation to communications and how people were signposted to support.
· It was confirmed that there was no upper age limit for the apprenticeships offered through the Apprenticeship Store.
· It was noted that performance indicator IN.19 (Continuing Education – Leaders from the borough’s priority areas) was showing as ‘red’, and it was suggested that moving the adult education service into the more centrally located Central Library building might fit well in a longer term strategy for improving performance against this measure.
Sustainable Stockport Portfolio
· It was commented that performance indicator SS. 4.6 (Service failures per 100,000 bin collections (cumulative)) omitted those bins that were not collected due to changes to the schedule such as those rounds that were negatively affected by the pandemic or the national shortage of drivers which made it difficult for the committee to readily understand the ongoing impact of these issues.
· The inclusion of a new indicator in relation to ‘New walking and cycling schemes created’ was welcomed.
· It was noted that there remained some confusion amongst the public in relation to the distinction between fly-tipping and incorrectly presented waste (side-waste) which meant that this was often reported using the wrong online form and it was suggested more work could be done to direct and inform the public in relation to the difference between the two.
· It was commented that a decision had been made at the Greater Manchester level to introduce permits for vans taking waste to household recycling centres, and it was suggested that this might have a consequent impact on the level of fly-tipping in the borough.
· In response to a question regarding the work needed to improve the EPC ratings of those 10% of properties that were rated below category C, it was stated that the council needed to continue to be opportunistic and respond when funding streams became available to make improvements.
· There was a programme for the development of community orchards across the borough that had previously been circulated to members.
· The performance of those teams responding to reported incidents of fly-tipping was commended.
· It was stated that on occasion there were difficulties with reports of fly-tipping on private land in encouraging landowners to resolve the problem.
· It was suggested that in specific locations, signage may not be sufficient to advise motorists that the council was offering 4 hours of free parking on Saturdays.
· Members requested further information on the draft programme of new affordable homes attached to the £15.997m of borrowing detailed in the report.
· It was suggested that where new performance measures were included within the report, baseline data should be provided so that current performance could be measured against it.
RESOLVED – That the report be noted.