To review the Council’s key performance indicators and make recommendations to the Cabinet.

The Board scrutinised the submitted Performance Report for Quarter 4 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 was the reason for the £2.1m underspend in the school capital programme, and would these projects be carried forward into the next financial year? 

·        Had any school capital projects been cancelled, or would all schemes continue until completion? 

·        Why had only around half of the planned capital budget been spent to date, and what factors had influenced the rate of delivery? 

·        What assurances could be provided that previously identified risks around capital budget slippage and rollover had been addressed? 

·        What new capital funding had been secured for SEND provision, and how would this be utilised to improve outcomes for children and young people? 

·        How would investment in facilities such as Combe Pafford support pupils with additional needs and reduce reliance on out-of-area placements? 

·        Under the SEND reform plan, if 90% of the deficit was covered, what was the estimated residual liability for the Council, and how would this be managed? 

·        What were the financial risks associated with the end of the statutory override in 2027/28, and how was the Council preparing for this? 

·        What activity was underway to work with local businesses to support town centre regeneration and increase footfall? 

·        What were the reasons for delays in the allocation and payment of Community Ward Fund grants, and how were these impacting community groups? 

·        What improvements were being made to communication and feedback on Community Ward Fund applications? 

·        What provision would be in place to support homelessness beyond 2025/26, and how was the Council progressing delivery of social housing? 

·        What barriers were being encountered in delivering new housing, particularly affordable housing, and how were these being addressed? 

·        Why were planning performance indicators currently rated red, and what actions were being taken to improve performance against key targets? 

·        What progress had been made in reducing planning caseloads, clearing historic applications, and improving enforcement activity? 

·        How reliable were planning appeal performance measures given the small number of appeals, and how should these be interpreted? 

·        How realistic were the housing delivery targets set within the report, particularly in relation to affordable housing provision? 

·        What proportion of new housing delivery was genuinely affordable, and how did this compare with identified local need? 

·        Why was suicide data reported as “monitoring only”, and what steps were being taken locally to support suicide prevention? 

·        How reliable was the data used for this indicator, and how were delays in national reporting being mitigated? 

·        What issues were raised through the residents’ survey in relation to the local environment, and what actions were being taken to address these concerns?

The following responses were received:

·        The £2.1m underspend in the school capital programme reflects the current stage of delivery, with projects progressing at different rates.  None of the schemes had been cancelled and all would be carried forward into the next financial year until completion.

·        The level of spend to date reflects works completed so far rather than a reduction in programme scope.  Previous concerns regarding capital budget rollover had been addressed, with earlier allocations now largely spent and new funding being directed towards priority areas, particularly SEND provision.

·        Additional capital funding had been secured to support SEND requirements, including investment in specialist provision such as dedicated neurodiversity spaces within schools.  Investment at Combe Pafford would enhance its designation for SEMH, enabling more pupils with complex needs to be supported locally and reducing reliance on out-of-area placements, with associated transport and placement cost savings.

·        Under the SEND reform (Safety Valve) arrangements, the Council’s remaining liability was expected to be relatively small, estimated at approximately £200,000 after applying the 90% grant contribution. However, the end of the statutory override in 2027/28 presents an ongoing financial risk, and work was underway to strengthen early intervention and graduated responses within schools to manage future demand.

·        Work was ongoing with local businesses, particularly in areas such as Fleet Walk and the Harbour, to support town centre activity through initiatives and installations linked to wider programmes such as the Bay of Lights. This was aimed at increasing footfall and encouraging greater business participation.

·        Delays in Community Ward Fund payments had been attributed to administrative and process issues, which had impacted some community groups and may discourage future applications.  Actions were being taken to resolve specific cases and improve communication, payment processes, and feedback to applicants.

·        The Council continues to progress an ongoing programme to address homelessness, including the delivery of approximately 30 new social housing units in the current year.  However, wider housing delivery remains challenging due to rising construction costs and difficulties in securing support from Homes England.  There was a recognised need to increase the proportion of social housing within future schemes.

·        Planning performance indicators were currently rated red, but underlying data shows improving trends, particularly in validation times and reduced caseloads.  Work was ongoing to improve decision-making times, ensure more consistent planning decisions, and further reduce backlogs and enforcement cases.

·        Planning appeal performance was influenced by very low volumes, meaning that small variations could significantly affect percentages.  As such, performance needs to be interpreted with caution alongside broader qualitative measures.

·        Housing delivery targets were originally set in line with national expectations, but current market conditions meant that delivery, particularly of affordable housing was below these levels.  A relatively small proportion of new homes were being delivered as social or affordable housing, reflecting wider national challenges in the sector.

·        Suicide data was reported as “monitoring only” due to its reliance on national datasets and coroner determinations, which were subject to delay and backlog.  Local partners supplement this with real-time intelligence, such as police data, to inform prevention work.  Ongoing activity was taking place to support suicide prevention, with recent indications suggesting a slight decrease.

·        The residents’ survey highlighted concerns around environmental quality, particularly issues such as weeds in public spaces.  In response, programmes such as Operation Brighter Bay had been implemented, with additional support from community payback teams.  While some improvements had been made, it was recognised that further work was required to meet residents’ expectations.

Resolved (unanimously):

1.    That the Overview and Scrutiny Board recommends that a summary be provided outlining previous events held within the Bay to review challenges experienced, along with key lessons learned for further review;

2.    That the Overview and Scrutiny Board request further detail to monitor Performance Indicator BP98 for greater understanding as to how the figure was arrived at; and

3.    That the Overview and Scrutiny Board note the Council’s current performance.