Loading
The committee scrutinised the council's Quarter 1 performance report for 2026-2027, covering the period up to the end of June, and questioned officers across its services. It made nine recommendations, including reviewing performance measures and targets and reporting planning application volumes. The committee also noted that a Housing Strategy item had been removed from its November agenda.
Apologies have been received from Committee Members, Cllrs Corinna Kenyon-Wade and Chloe Masefield and from Cabinet Member for Future Generations, Cllr Sandra Davies and Cabinet Member for a Learning Powys, Cllr James Gibson-Watt. Also from Officers: Matt Perry (Chief Officer – Place), John Forsey (Head of Highways, Transport and Recycling), Debby Jones (Head of Legal and Monitoring Officer) James Chappelle (Chief Accountant) and Mari Thomas (Head of Finance).
There were no declarations of interest from Members relating to items for consideration on the agenda.
The Committee did not receive any disclosures of prohibited party whips which a Member has been given in relation to the meeting in accordance with Section 78(3) of the Local Government Measure 2011.
It was noted that the proposed Housing Strategy item had been removed from the November meeting agenda, as existing strategic and business planning arrangements were considered to provide the necessary framework for housing priorities.
Catherine James, Head of Business Intelligence and Governance introduced the report. Questions Raised by Committee Members Responses Received from Cabinet Members and Officers Performance Framework, Measures and Reporting • Clarification was sought regarding how performance measures were selected and who determined which measures were included within the scorecard. • Were measures benchmarked against other local authorities. • How did performance reporting influenced decision-making and service improvement. • What is the amount of officer time required to produce the performance framework and associated reports. • Was the report was a statutory requirement. • Questions were raised regarding whether some measures reflected matters outside the Council’s control. • Were too many measures included, potentially obscuring the most important strategic outcomes. • Questions were raised regarding whether all measures should carry equal weight within the performance framework. • Clarification was sought regarding the timeliness of quarterly reporting and the delay between the reporting period and scrutiny consideration. • Questions were raised regarding whether targets were sufficiently ambitious and outcome-focused. It was explained that performance measures were developed to support delivery of the Corporate and Strategic Equality Plan and were considered by services, senior leadership and elected Members through the annual planning process. It was reported that some measures were benchmarked regionally and nationally, while others related specifically to local corporate priorities. It was emphasised that performance monitoring formed a key element of business planning, service improvement and organisational learning. Officers advised that the report fulfilled a number of statutory requirements, including duties arising from wellbeing, local government and equality legislation. It was acknowledged that some measures required further review to ensure they remained meaningful, relevant and focused on strategic outcomes. Officers confirmed that performance measures and targets were subject to ongoing review and refinement. Concerns regarding the timing of Quarter 1 scrutiny were acknowledged, with officers explaining that Cabinet consideration, summer recess arrangements and reporting processes contributed to the time lag. Data Quality, Integrity and Use of Technology • Concern was raised regarding commentary accompanying Measure 353 and whether data interpretation issues affected confidence in other measures. • How were the integrity and quality of performance data assured. • Questions were raised regarding the extent to which artificial intelligence was used in collecting or reporting performance information. • Clarification was sought regarding the date to which the report related. It was explained that the issue identified related to a specific measure and did not indicate wider concerns regarding the underlying data. Assurance was provided that services remained responsible for validating data and that quality assurance processes were applied before publication. Officers advised that most measures were generated through automated reporting systems and business intelligence dashboards, but that artificial intelligence was not used in producing the performance report. It was clarified that the data related to Quarter 1 performance up to the end of June, with additional time required to complete validation and reporting processes before publication. Co-production, Communications and Qualitative Outcomes • Were references to co-production within performance narratives consistent with the Council’s agreed definition. • Clarification was sought regarding whether officers trained in co-production had supported preparation of performance narratives. • What evidence supported claims that communications activity had increased public trust. • How were qualitative outcomes such as trust and co-production measured where formal performance indicators were absent. It was acknowledged that greater consistency was required in the use of co-production terminology and that distinctions between co-production and engagement should be made clearer. Officers welcomed the challenge and undertook to consider how trained officers could support future reporting. It was further acknowledged that claims regarding trust required stronger supporting evidence and that the usefulness of such measures would be reviewed. Customer Services and Digital Access • Questions were raised regarding customer satisfaction measures and the representativeness of survey responses. • How were satisfaction targets calculated. • Questions were asked regarding the proportion of abandoned calls and whether repeat callers inflated call volumes. • How were improvements being implemented to customer contact arrangements. • Questions were raised regarding support available for residents unable to access digital services. It was explained that satisfaction measures were based on responses received from customers who chose to complete surveys. Officers acknowledged the limitations of the dataset but noted that it provided useful insight alongside complaints data. It was reported that call abandonment rates had reduced compared with the previous year but remained higher than desired. Members were advised that a new customer contact platform had been introduced to improve routing, response times and customer feedback collection. Support for digital inclusion was reported as being available through libraries and dedicated assistance programmes. Economic Development and Community Investment • How was social value generated through transport contracts measured. • Regarding the Pride in Place programme, how had participating towns been selected and how were outcomes were measured. • Clarification was sought regarding whether the Real Living Wage target was sufficiently ambitious. • Questions were raised regarding support provided to employers to encourage accreditation under the Real Living Wage scheme. It was reported that further information on social value calculations for transport contracts would be provided following the meeting. Officers advised that Pride in Place projects had been informed by local place plans, community engagement and grant conditions set by UK Government. It was explained that some outcomes, such as civic pride and community benefit, were inherently difficult to measure. Officers confirmed that Real Living Wage accreditation was promoted through economic support programmes, grant conditions and the Economic Pledge, while recognising affordability pressures facing businesses. Climate Change and Workforce Development • Assurance was sought regarding improvement in climate emergency training performance. • Were climate training targets to be achieved. • Clarification was sought regarding the impact of workforce recruitment and retention challenges on service delivery. • Questions were raised regarding participation in Communities for Work programmes. It was reported that delays had occurred due to staffing and delivery changes, but that climate emergency training had commenced and would be rolled out at scale during subsequent quarters. Officers advised that recruitment and retention remained challenging nationally, particularly for specialist roles, although performance had improved and vacancy levels had reduced. Various graduate, apprenticeship and trainee programmes were highlighted as measures intended to strengthen workforce resilience. Housing and Adaptations • Concerns were raised regarding lengthy waiting times for Disabled Facilities Grant adaptations and whether improvements could be made. • Clarification was sought regarding housing waiting list performance, particularly for Band 1 and Band 5 applicants. • Questions were raised regarding housing supply, allocation processes and the management of housing registers. • Clarification was sought regarding the length of time applicants remained on housing waiting lists. It was acknowledged that adaptation waiting times remained unsatisfactory and that capacity constraints were a significant contributing factor. Officers reported that efforts were being made to increase capacity and improve performance. It was explained that demand for housing substantially exceeded available supply and that allocation decisions were based upon assessed housing need. Work was reported as ongoing to improve the accuracy and management of housing waiting lists in partnership with registered social landlords. Rights of Way and Highways Performance • Concern was raised regarding continued underperformance against rights of way measures. • Questions were raised regarding the appropriateness of current rights of way targets. • Were sufficient resources available to meet statutory obligations. • Questions were raised regarding the context behind rights of way performance figures. • Why had highway resurfacing targets been consistently exceeded. • Questions were raised regarding whether resurfacing targets should be more challenging. It was acknowledged that rights of way performance remained a significant challenge and that resource limitations affected delivery. Officers reported that additional staffing, apprenticeships and volunteer support arrangements were being developed, although broader resource constraints remained. It was explained that rights of way duties were delivered within the context of what was reasonably practicable. Regarding resurfacing targets, officers advised that performance had benefited from additional grant funding and focused delivery teams. It was agreed that target-setting would be reviewed through the forthcoming business planning process. Planning and Development Management • What was the impact of Local Impact Assessments on planning service performance. • What were costs associated with specialist consultants and could those costs could be recovered. • Questions were raised regarding declining planning and enforcement performance. • Should reporting include application volumes alongside performance percentages. • Members asked for clarification regarding planning service staffing levels and performance targets. • Had the absence of an up-to-date Local Development Plan hindered development activity. It was reported that Local Impact Assessments and major applications required substantial officer time and specialist consultancy input, placing pressure on service capacity. Officers advised that some costs could be recovered through Planning Performance Agreements, although uptake remained limited. Reduced performance was attributed to vacancies, sickness absence, increased application volumes and resource pressures. Support was expressed for providing application volume information alongside percentage performance measures in future reporting. Officers advised that the Local Development Plan continued to carry weight as a material planning consideration and was not preventing economic development opportunities from progressing. Waste and Recycling • Why was recycling performance below target. • What were potential financial penalties for failing to meet statutory recycling targets. • What were the impact of changes to recycling classifications and external factors on performance. • What actions were being taken to improve recycling rates. • Questions were raised regarding increases in residual waste. Officers explained that recycling performance had been affected by changes in recycling classifications, reduced green waste volumes, fluctuations in gully waste collection and revised assumptions issued by regulators. It was reported that financial penalties were not automatically imposed and would be considered alongside contextual factors and improvement actions. Additional resources funded through Extended Producer Responsibility arrangements had been invested in education and enforcement activity. Particular emphasis was being placed on increasing food waste recycling rates and improving public awareness. Leisure Services and Wellbeing Platforms • Members queried the reliability of leisure attendance figures. • Why had overall leisure centre attendance exceeded target while participation figures were lower. • Questions were raised regarding arrangements for free holiday activities for children. • Clarification was sought regarding fluctuating usage figures for the Let’s Go and AMDAMI Powys platforms. • Did current targets accurately reflect outcomes. It was explained that separate measures recorded total visits and active participation, resulting in different performance figures. Officers advised that attendance information was monitored, checked and validated through contract management arrangements. Free holiday activities were reported as being funded through grant programmes and delivered through partnership arrangements. It was acknowledged that data collection arrangements for the Let’s Go and AMDAMI Powys platform required further review, with alternative reporting approaches being considered to provide more meaningful measures of engagement.
Scrutiny made the following recommendations: 1. Review performance indicators to ensure they remain relevant, measurable and within the Council's control. · Strengthen quality assurance of performance data and narrative before reports are published. · Review targets that are consistently exceeded to ensure they remain sufficiently ambitious · Report back on actions taken to address underperforming indicators within the next reporting cycle. 2. Develop and implement measures to improve Climate Emergency training performance and provide a progress update to the Committee at a future meeting. 3. That performance measures and targets be reviewed to ensure they are relevant, outcome-focused and meaningful, with statutory measures clearly identified and non-statutory measures supported by SMART targets 4. That future performance reports include changes in the number of planning applications received and determined, together with determination times, to provide a complete picture of planning service performance and demand. 5. That officers with co-production training are involved in reviewing relevant performance narratives to ensure that references to co-production are consistent with the Council's agreed definition and distinguish clearly between co-production, engagement and consultation 6. That future performance reporting provides clear evidence to support claims relating to improvements in public trust, engagement and other qualitative outcomes. 7. That the Council reviews the number and relevance of performance measures to ensure reporting remains focused on the most important strategic outcomes and areas of greatest impact. 8. That the Council reviews whether key performance measures should be prioritised or weighted within the performance framework to provide a clearer reflection of overall performance against strategic objectives. 9. That the arrangements for scrutiny of quarterly performance reports be reviewed to reduce the time lag between the reporting period and scrutiny consideration, enabling more effective challenge and oversight. Actions • HTR to provide the Committee with further information on how social value is measured, monitored and reported within transport contracts. • HTR (Rights of Way) to review the current Rights of Way performance measure and target-setting approach through the Integrated Business Planning process, including consideration of whether the existing target remains appropriate, meaningful and reflective of service performance.
Councillors must say when they have a personal link to something being discussed, such as a job, a property or a family member. A prejudicial interest is one strong enough that the councillor usually leaves the room and takes no part.
Declarations are read from the minutes once they are published.
Lists the council's current councillors only. Co-opted members, officers and former councillors aren't shown.