Agenda item

The appendix to this report provides an overview of the council’s performance with respect to its 2024-25 annual plan objectives, key performance indicators, corporate risks, committee risks, and annual governance statement actions.

The appendix to the report provided an overview of the council’s performance with respect to its 2024-25 annual plan objectives, key performance indicators, corporate risks, committee risks, and annual governance statement actions.

The following matters were considered:

a)             Households in nightly paid accommodation. A Member of the Committee asked why there has been an increase in the number of households living in nightly paid accommodation during Q1 2024/25. The Business Assurance Manager confirmed that they would take the question to the relevant officer and a written response would be provided.

b)             Resource Issue. A Member of the Committee asked what the plan is to increase resources to ensure that targets are met regarding progressing the actions from the CSP Review recommendations. The Chair confirmed that a written response would be provided after the meeting once the relevant officers were consulted.

c)             Balanced budget. A Member of the Committee raised that the ‘set a balanced budget’ target is rated as green, they queried if that is because the Council will have a balanced budget soon but does not presently. The Member also asked Officers to explain what a balanced budget means. The Chief Finance Officer informed the Committee that the Council has a statutory duty to have a balanced budget. The Chief Finance Officer continued to explain that there is flexibility in how to balance the budget. The Council’s budget is balanced at the moment by a contribution from the Council’s reserves. The Chief Finance Officer explained that the Council does have a budget deficit and diminishing reserves, and the Strategy and Resources Committee agreed a Framework in July for setting the budget and a number of workstreams to reduce and eliminate that deficit, to protect the Council’s reserves.

d)             Staff sickness. A Member of the Committee asked if the Council understands why the average number of days of staff sickness is coming down. The Chair confirmed that a written response would be provided after the meeting once the relevant officers were consulted.

e)             Town Hall Move. A Member of the Committee asked for an explanation of the commentary on AP24/5.4 and an update on the project timeline. The Chair noted that this Annual Plan Project item was updated on the 22^nd of August so there may have been developments since the report was produced. The Business Assurance Manager confirmed that they would take the question to the relevant officer and a written response would be provided. The Business Assurance Manager informed the Committee that ‘qs on board’ meant a Quantity Surveyor had been appointed.

f)               Planning Applications. A Member of the Committee queried if the KPIs for Planning Applications would result in the Planning Committee approving more applications quickly. The Chair declared that he is also the Chair of Planning Committee. The Chair explained to the Committee that the Planning Committee are not looking at the KPIs when deciding Planning Applications, the KPIs are indicators for which the Council is measured on by Central Government.

g)             Tracking of Stage 1 & 2 Complaints. A Member of the Committee raised that there is currently no way of tracking the quality of complaint responses to residents. The Member asked if the average time taken to process stage 1 and 2 complaints, is from when the first email complaint is received or from when the complaint is logged, and an email acknowledgment sent. The Business Assurance Manager informed the Committee that the Council’s complaints procedure has been updated. The Business Assurance Manager confirmed that they would take the question to the relevant officer and a written response would be provided.

h)             IT Cyber Attack. A Member of the Committee asked why the Council has allocated a considerable sum to this area, most of which remains unspent, and with the RAG rating remaining red. The Member suggested the Council’s IT department contact the LGA Cyber 360 programme, who can provide practical advice on how best to make use of the funds to get the RAG rating improved. The Chair noted the comments, and written response would be provided after the meeting once the relevant officers were consulted.

i)               Hook Road Car Park. A Member of the Committee asked what was happening with the risk HC26 on page 84, since the September meeting of the Strategy and Resources Committee did not approve the funding that Environment Committee requested. The Chief Finance Officer explained to the Committee that Environment Committee were presented with options for Hook Road Car Park, one within their existing budget capability, and one exceeding their budget. Environment Committee will explore the option within their budget at the October Committee Meeting to mitigate this risk.

j)               Spatial Strategy. A Member of the Committee raised that one way to tolerate and control the PD27 Spatial Strategy risk, would be to have regular updates, through meetings and briefings. The Member stated that none of that has happened, so they do not understand why the risk drops from 12 to 8. The Chair informed the Committee that the Transport modelling deadline has been met and the spatial strategy options were submitted to Surrey County Council to begin working through. The Chair continued to explain that it has been made clear throughout the process, the time it takes to complete the work necessary for relevant deadlines to be met. The Member responded to say that whilst they understand the risk would decrease due to the Transport modelling deadlines being met, they still believe there is a big risk remaining on the Councillor side, due to not knowing what the reaction will be once Councillors are presented with the report at the November Licensing and Planning Policy Committee.

k)             Complaints Response. A Member of the Committee asked why the DST10 risk, on page 92, remained the same, when there has been an increase in planning complaints. The Chair explained to the Committee that it is a risk register and not a KPI, so there is not further update as the risk hasn’t changed, and the same mitigating factors are in place. The Business Assurance Manager confirmed that the Council does see spikes in complaints at certain times, but this does not mean that the Council’s response to those is ineffective.

l)               HC30. A Member of the Committee raised a concern about risk HC30 on page 81, that where the Council agrees to issue a public space protection order for anti-social behaviour, there is an added risk of Surrey Policy misclassifying or downgrading criminal offences to ASB. The Member asked for reassurance that this would be further scrutinised when Surrey Police bring a report to the Committee for Crime and Disorder scrutiny. The Chair noted the comments and confirmed that it would be properly queried and scrutinised when it does come back to Committee. 

Following consideration, the Committee unanimously resolved to:

(1)       Note and comment on the performance and risk information located at Appendix 1.