Agenda item

(Director of Governance) to consider the attached report.

The Committee considered the outturn (Q4) report for the Key Performance Indicators for 2014/15 specific to this Select Committee area of responsibility.

Nine of the thirty-six KPI for 2014/15 that was adopted by the Finance and Performance Management Cabinet Committee in March 2014 fell within the Neighbourhoods and Community Services Select Committee area of responsibility. The overall position in regard to the achievement of target performance at the end of the year for the nine indicators was:

·         6 (67%) indicators achieved the end of year target;

·         3 (33%) indicators did not achieve the cumulative end of year target.

Councillor Patel noted that the percentages given were useful but corresponding figures would be more helpful in making sense of the percentage figures.

The Committee went on to review each indicator and question any inconsistencies that they came across.

NEI002 - % of all household waste sent to be recycled, reused or composted – Mr Durrani the Assistant Director, Technical Services, commented that this target had not been achieved; the target of 60% had not been an easy one. Although, he noted that we were the 10^th best authority in England for this. Officers still had to keep reminding the residents to recycle.  Food was not being recycled in flats and that 50 to 60% of black bin waste was food.

The target for the coming year was to be 60% again.

Councillor Neville commented that he had observed that some bags had things falling out of them, and that the spillage was not being collected by the refuse collectors and was being left for their street cleaning colleagues. Mr Durrani replied that they should have picked up any spillage as that was part of the contract. If members know of any such incident that they should let him know, giving the time and location, and officers would chase it up.

Councillor Whitehouse asked why did the targets for each quarter change. She was told that it used to be a static 60%, but with food and recycling being seasonal, attempts were made to even this out over the year and give it a seasonal profile.

Councillor Surtees commented that it was unfortunate that such a small percentage would mean the difference between pass or fail. Would it be possible to have the tonnage put in as well? Mr Durrani said that this could be put into the comments section.

NEI003 – what % of the district had unacceptable levels of litter – and

NEI004 – what % of the district had unacceptable levels of detritus – the committee noted that these were linked. Partly responsible for not meeting the targets was the change over from Sita to Biffa. There should be an improvement over the coming months.  This system looked at random sections of the district and it could be that it just happened to look at a bad part of the district, but we do have high standards, better that most districts in Essex.

It should be noted that we now recycle the detritus and can even make some money from this.

Councillor Neville noted that officers said that they chose areas at random across the district, but was there a good mix of the different type of areas. Mr Durrani said that they did try to have a representative mix of urban and rural sites.

Councillor Surtees said that it was right to say that the settling down of the Biffa contract would take some time. Was it unreal to say that we would be getting good results soon and that we would need some time for it to settle down?

NEI006 – what % of recorded incidences of fly-tipping are investigated within 3 working days of being recorded;

NEI007 – what % of recorded incidents of recorded fly-tipping (contract cleared) are removed within 5 working days of being recorded; and

NEI008 – what % of recorded incidents of fly-tipping (variation order/non-contract) are removed within 10 working days of being recorded.

The Committee considered the above KPIs on fly-tipping.

Councillor Surtees asked if we could stop and search vehicles carrying waste. He was told that was part of the licensing system and the Environment Agency assisted by the Police could do this but not our officers. The District Council did have use of mobile CCTV and this was used in certain hotspots.

Councillor Patel wondered what was the difference between contract clearance in 5 working days and non-contract clearance in 10 working days. He was told that contract clearing was for land owned by this authority. This was easier to manage as we were also responsible by statute.  Non-contract clearing was in areas not owned by us, this was private land and it was more complicated in that we have to identify the land owner and serve notice on them to remove the waste.

Councillor Neville noted that under NEI008, the percentage had gone down to 91% from 97% in quarter 1. He was told that this indicator was driven by what we were told about the various sites. Mr Nolan could give him a fuller explanation.

NEO009 – what % of out of hours noise complaints are responded to within 15 minutes – it was noted that officers did go out with noise meters but they had to make judgement calls on the complaints and they also needed evidence.

Councillor Surtees noted the comments section said that “issues needed to be improved regarding Mears initial call handling” was this getting any better? He was told that this was a more efficient way of dealing with out of hours complaints, but there was some issues encountered in the early days. They were now becoming more confident in handling this type of complaint and getting better.

The Committee asked that in future the sheets on the KPIs be reproduced in colour. Officers agreed to do so.

RESOLVED:

That the Quarter 4 (outturn) performance figures in relation to the Key Performance Indicators relevant to this Select Committee be noted.