Meeting documents

The Committee is asked to consider and comment on the attached Cabinet report.

The Committee considered a report which attached the Service Plans for each of the service areas within the Council. Service Plans were an important part of the Council’s performance management framework and provided a summary of achievements from the current year and an overview of what each service aimed to deliver in 2019-20.

The service plans had been significantly reduced in size, had changed format and aimed to include only key information so that both staff and the public can easily reference the document.

During discussion the Committee raised the following points and comments for Cabinet to consider:

• The significant improvement to the presentation and layout of the service plans, compared to previous years was noted.
• Targets had not changed for a large proportion of performance indicators (PIs) from 2018/19 to 2019/20. Where targets were being met, the Committee encouraged these being set higher to further challenge teams to improve and avoid targets being set as projections rather than aspirational targets.
• The business continuity plan should be reviewed to reflect the migration to cloud IT systems. The cloud servers had built in resilience, with providers having back-up systems meaning that whilst not risk free, there was increased security over individual onsite servers. Each of the District Councils in Buckinghamshire was moving toward cloud migration with AVDC having made the most progress, followed by Chiltern and South Bucks.
• Further, with the new authority commencing from April 2020 the Committee agreed that all potential new contracts should be carefully considered to ensure value for money was achieved and to avoid spending on areas which would likely be changed in the new authority.
• Page 71 of the reports pack detailed an action for the Environment service area in relation to working with the EA to realign the River Misbourne to its original route. Members raised concern that this had risks attached and there was no guarantee that the original riverbed would have remained meaning that the river could ultimately disappear.
• A Member queried whether the parking arrangements at KGVH were being reviewed following previous plans to increase the parking. As the multi-storey car park extension had now been completed which had been the main reason to consider extra spaces, and with the impending move to unitary it was unlikely this would be revisited at this time.
• The procurement of a new three way waste contract was ongoing and it was noted that there was likely to be a substantial increase to costs as contractors were not keen to take risks on recycled products. The Committee asked that clarification be provided on whether the option had been explored to combine operations with AVDC who ran their own waste scheme.
• The Committee commented that the recycling targets set appeared unambitious both to Members and residents, although it was explained that recycling levels nationally had dropped and the Council was achieving above national benchmarks. New campaigns were planned to increase recycling rates, with a particular focus on paper recycling. It would be reported back to Members what the reasons were behind the national downward trend. The Committee suggested including national benchmarks where appropriate to better inform residents about the Council’s performance.
• It would be reported to Members why there was a 10% differential between PIs CdPED10 and SbPED10 (minor planning applications decision performance).
• The Committee recommended removing the PIs or ensuring targets were added for those on page 88 of the reports pack as residents could view this and question the lack of any target.
• A Member recommended the wording be reduced around some of the infographics to ensure they were consistent and stood out to residents reading the document. It was further suggested that following this the infographics would be good tools for individual departments to display.
• Where there were inconsistencies in targets or large differentials between Chiltern and South Bucks, the Committee suggested the inclusion of an asterisk with a brief explanation to assist those reading the service plans to understand why.
• The Committee appreciated that it would take significant work but suggested that for next year it be explored whether the online version could include an interactive highlight document which allowed users to click into sections to read full details.

Note 2: Councillor C Ford entered the meeting at 7.04 pm.