To consider the Performance Report 2025/26 for Quarter 3 and make recommendations to the Cabinet.

The Board scrutinised the submitted Performance Report for Quarter 3 2025/2026 which provided an overview of the performance of the Council working towards the ambitions and priorities within the Community and Corporate Plan and the Council Business Plan. 132 performance indicators had been identified and 32 projects.

Members raised the following questions:

·                What barriers caused the slow uptake of Ward Funds across multiple wards?

·                What support do Members need to ensure full spend of their Ward Funds within the financial year?

·                What proportion of rolled-over funds remain unallocated, and what was the risk of underspend?

·                What were the root causes behind fluctuating enforcement case numbers year-on-year and when was it expected to reduce case timescales and backlog to the target levels?

·                What specific interventions were improving housing placements for care leavers?

·                Why was the percentage of care?experienced young people not in education, employment or training (NEET) significantly below target?

·                Why was BP86 number of people supported into work much worse than target and what was being done to address this?

·                Why were some indicators still missing targets or data (e.g. BP03 MyView)?

·                Why was BP30 Number of families in B and B accommodation longer than 6 weeks this quarter (to whom we owe a housing duty) showing worse than target?

The following responses were received:

·                Ward Funds were rolled over from the previous year where they were not allocated, partly due to a slowdown at the end of the year, and reminders had been sent to Members.  Processes had been streamlined, particularly those involving SWISCo which was working better.  It was noted that Shiphay had not submitted its bid as it was awaiting further information about parks use.  It was suggested that a more open bid would be submitted to enable the funds to be allocated.

·                The number of open enforcement cases had reduced to 544, showing consistent sustained effort, but it was not possible at this stage to confirm when the target would be met.  There had been improved cross?Council working and clearer performance expectations had contributed.  A Planning Lawyer had been recruited to support enforcement which would also help resolve cases quicker.

·                Since the report had been written there were now 296 cared for children, which was moving in the right direction. 

·                It had been a good year for recruiting foster carers and there had been a reduction in the number of care leavers in unsuitable accommodation since new accommodation had come on stream. 

·                The NEET target for care experienced young people was very ambitious and Torbay Council was broadly similar to other authorities, but we want to do better.  The Council was establishing an employment hub at Parkfield for care experienced young people.

·                The support into work target (BP86) was lower than expected due to slow recruitment of the UK Shared Prosperity Fund (UKSPF) provider and challenges engaging relevant partners.  The Council was actively working with the provider and businesses to help place people in work.

·                Targets were blank where indicators were annual measures and data was not yet available e.g. MyView.

·                BP30 was showing worse than target due to one family being in B and B accommodation at the time of the report, they have since been placed into more suitable accommodation.  Performance in temporary accommodation was seeing good movement, and the Council was helping people move into their permanent homes.