Agenda item

Purpose of report:

Performance Monitoring. The report provides a thematic overview of the performance of the ETI Directorate giving the Select Committee up-to-date information.

Witnesses:

Natalie Bramhall, Cabinet Member for Environment & Climate Change

Matt Furniss, Cabinet Member for Transport

Katie Stewart, Executive Director – Environment, Transport & Infrastructure

Carolyn McKenzie, Director - Environment

Jo Diggens, Business Improvement & Quality Assurance Team Leader

Michelle Rowland, Business Intelligence Team Leader

Key points raised during the discussion:

1. The Executive Director introduced the report and explained that performance monitoring was an area of continuing development across the Council.Targets were due to be challenged and scrutinisedby CLT and Cabinet Members to ensure that they were both realistic and ambitious. The Directorate had endeavoured to set stretch targets that were attainable in order to show improvement or decline in performance.

Meeting paused at 10:02 owing to webcasting problems

Meeting recommenced at 10:04

2. A Member questioned the relative value of the performance data in assessing the Directorate’s performance given the circumstances faced in 2020/21 as compared with previous years. The Executive Director stated that it was still important to continue performance monitoring during the pandemic as the Directorate was expected to run its essential services. Covid-19 had impacted some indicators (waste services, for example) however a number of missed targets (such as flood risk) were reflective of the position and progress of the Directorate and the timing of capital investment. Some of the indicators were to be reviewed because of the continuing impacts of Covid-19.

3. A Member asked whether there could be a consistent mix of indicators (financial, quantitative and qualitative) for each theme. The Executive Director acknowledged that the Directorate needed to achieve a greater balance of indicators in future performance reports.

4. The Chairman noted that a number of Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) expected in January 2021 were not yet available and asked when they would be delivered. The Business Improvement and Quality Assurance Team Leader responded that the pending indicators needed to undergo validation before they were shared widely. Some indicators were new and subject to ongoing work to ensure that the data collected was robust and accurate. The Directorate were hoping to deliver all outstanding performance results within the month.

5. A Member noted that there were few climate change targets included in the report. The Executive Director informed the Select Committee that these indicators were not yet established because it was important to ensure that they were meaningful and measurable. The Select Committee would return to this at its March 2021 meeting when scrutinising the Climate Change delivery plan.

6. A Member asked whether the Council would be undertaking a coordination role with districts and borough councils to tackle climate change. The Executive Director confirmed that the Council’s Climate Change Strategy and Delivery Plan assumed a coordination role for the Council. The Delivery Plan looked at a range of partnership-wide actions.

7. A Member requested that future performance reports differentiate clearly between organisation climate change targets for Surrey County Council (for example, getting to net zero by 2030) and Surrey-wide climate change targets. Further to this the Director confirmed that there would be performance monitoring of the wider partnership and the Directorate was in the process of defining what those indicators would be. There would be climate change indicators for the Council as a business and organisation, alongside indicators that capture climate change measures across the whole of Surrey.

8. A Member commented that working from home had significantly impacted household waste and the target to reduce kerbside residual waste and queried whether the Council’s target should be revised given the likelihood that working from home would continue post-pandemic. The Executive Director confirmed that the target was being reviewed and updated to account for the increase in home working. The priority of the Surrey Waste Local Plan was waste reduction and the Service was working closely with partners to ensure effective public messaging regarding the importance of reducing waste. The Cabinet Member added that the Service was working with partners to encourage residents to recycle more food waste, as this would significantly reduce the amount of residual waste. Engagement with district and borough councils regarding the rollout of recycling facilities at flats was underway and would ensure that all residents had the opportunity to recycle as much as possible.

9. The Member asked why there was a reduction in performance with regard to flood risk. The Executive Director explained that the targets were related to the Surrey Flood Alleviation Scheme and were a way of monitoring that programme and the level of investment. The targets did not capture the enforcement and maintenance work being done, and this would be made clearer in future performance reports. 

10. A Member asked which borough in Surrey had achieved ‘improvements in recycling and contamination’ and asked how these developments would be emulated in other districts and boroughs. The Director – Environment stated that communication, behaviour change, and enforcement were key to the improvements achieved in Woking. Rollout of a communications and behaviour change programme was due in 2021 and the Director hoped that this would expand performance improvements in waste targets across the whole of Surrey.

11. A Member asked how the performance of the Council in achieving its carbon savings targets would be reported. The Director stated that the Directorate was developing 3-5-year science-based carbon budgets and explained that the reporting of target carbon savings would be against key areas that constitute Surrey’s carbon footprint. The Directorate was to produce a full annual report detailing the areas where the council achieved its carbon reduction targets, and areas of underperformance.

12. The Chairman queried why some performance indicators has low scores with regard to resident satisfaction. The Executive Director stated that it was a challenge to score highly with resident satisfaction, but it was positive that Surrey residents had high expectations of the service. The Directorate benchmarked against national community perception averages and performed well. The Executive Director stated that they would look further at benchmarking to give context for resident satisfaction indicators.

Actions:

i.              Select Committee to receive an update on the tree planning programme (Owner: Carolyn McKenzie, Director - Environment)

Recommendations:

              I.                That a six-monthly review of the Environment Transport & Infrastructure Directorate’s performance is added to the Select Committee’s forward work programme for 2021/22.

             II.                That benchmarking data is included where possible along with quantitative and qualitative information across each of the performance themes