Meeting Details

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Clery and Jepson.  Councillor Packard attended as Councillor Clery's substitute.

The Chair also welcomed Councillor Hammond to his first meeting as a member of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee.

On the proposition of Councillor Lynch, seconded by Councillor Gooch it was

RESOLVED

That the Minutes of the Meeting held on 19 September 2024 be confirmed as a correct record and signed by the Chair.

The Committee considered report ES/2128 of the Leader of the Council who explained that the report contained the Annual Performance Summary and Annual Report 2023/24.  She explained that the purpose of performance monitoring was to provide an organisational overview of how the Council was performing to keep senior leadership and Members informed so remedial action could be taken if necessary, and good performance celebrated.  The Committee was reminded that the Strategic Plan, Our Direction 2028, was adopted by Full Council mid-way through the 2023/24 financial year (end of November 2023), however, it was noted that the Annual Report showed progress against the themes in the new Strategic Plan across the whole of the financial year, showing our position as at 31 March 2024. Performance was monitored as part of an annual cycle of actions, with quarterly focus from the Corporate Leadership Team (CLT), twice yearly at Informal Cabinet and scrutinised twice per year by the Overview & Scrutiny Committee.  The Leader stated that the Performance Dashboards were now available for Members to look at on the intranet and these were powered by AI which enabled us to analyse the information.  She stressed that progress was being made even if it had not been visible as some of the Dashboards showed information back to 2015/2016.  It was explained that the Annual Report showed KPIs which demonstrated if the Council was on track to deliver our objectives and how it linked with Our Direction 2028.  The Leader concluded by thanking Officers for their hard work creating the Dashboards.

The Chair thanked the Leader and invited the Deputy Leader to demonstrate how to access the Dashboards and drill down into the information. At the Chair's suggestion it was agreed that performance of each Our Direction 2028 Theme would be looked at in turn and the following responses were given to Members' queries:

Environmental Impact Theme:

• Fly tips were higher than in previous years but there was quite a lot of variation year on year and also within the years.  The data also showed if operatives had visited within 2 working days.  Generally performance was pretty good but could be better.  It was also possible to see incidents per ward and actions taken with some KPIs having geographical information.  The aspiration was to make some of this information public. 
• Looking at 2022/23 investigations and Fixed Penalty Notices for fly tipping, it was clear a lot of work had been done but there was a need to use the information to get an insight of what other information was needed eg it appeared our officer investigations were not too productive so perhaps ESSL operatives could be the first responder and if they could not see where the fly tip came from then they could just take it away.  It was acknowledged that the district did have some challenging areas where there are a lot of fly tips and the team were trying to look at ways to stop that so any questions or insights Members had were welcomed.
• Performance monitoring was about measuring and tracking measurements to understand what the root of the problem was and fix it to get continuous improvement.
• The County Council had undertaken some analysis to see if there was a connection between the closing of recycling centres and the new booking system with the number of fly tips, however, their evidence showed there was not a link.
• LG Inform would also enable comparison with other Councils to see if East Suffolk was having more success.
• A lot of effort went into investigating fly tips but very few resulted in prosecution or Fixed Penalty Notices so we needed to compare this with the costs to just legally dispose of it. If legislation were strengthened this would help but in the meantime the Council was looking at using covert surveillance and preventing sites being used as fly tipping areas, perhaps by discussing closing the areas off with landowners as this would reduce the number of fly tips but it could also just move the problem around. 
• East Suffolk's Amazing was trying to encourage behavioural changes eg although most of the fly tips had a domestic origin it was probably coming from tradesmen so a PR campaign was needed to inform residents that they should check tradesmen's licences as they were responsible and could be fined.
• The Council needed to be creative on how it tackled fly tips eg the Housing Team recently supported residents on a predominantly social housing estate to help them clear up and take their waste away because many did not have access to a vehicle to take it to the recycling centres. Using the data available, Officers would also work with Ward Councillors to come up with possible solutions.
• East Suffolk had been obliged to grant the permit for a waste incinerator but was the first council in the country to add a clause requiring certain measures to mitigate the risk to the climate such as the installation of carbon capture storage to the incinerator once the technology was available. They would also have to use scrubbers and have monitors in the chimney.  In addition, they had already invested in three cubes to monitor particulates in the area and no particulates had been found at present.  There was no evidence that construction work had commenced and it was possible that these conditions might make it difficult for them to do so, especially as a High Court judgment had found that they had not taken into account all the extra carbon once the incinerator was up and running so it had to be taken account of at the planning stage.
• Covert cameras were a good way to capture fly tippers but it was very heavily regulated and lengthy process to obtain permission.  It was also resource intensive to look through all the footage, although it was hoped to trial a particular site shortly.  Overt CCTV helped in some places, although people could still hide their vehicles/identity. 
• Waste cycles were seasonal with recycling performance improving in the summer due to garden waste but it decreased in the winter.  More people also seemed to want to fly tip around Christmas time.
• There were guidelines for how the Council measured itself as an organisation in relation to  carbon emissions.  The housing stock was occupied by tenants who had their own carbon footprint so that was why it was not included within our performance, however, it was likely that the EPC rating of our stock and other General Fund assets would be added to the Dashboard as a future indicator.
• In relation to planning applications and the Council having a wider influence, Biodiversity Net Gain had recently gone live with Uniform beginning to capture the data so, when there was enough data to display, it would be added to the Dashboard.
• The Housing team were currently auditing the stock to understand the problem and get a zero carbon solution but it was a very difficult challenge for the HRA especially by 2030. The Council had control over scope 1 and 2 emissions but not scope 3.  For example if solar panels were put on our housing stock we could guess what scope 3 would be eg less electricity would be used but we would not want to overestimate our figures.
• The Leader stated that the GLI Group had been in administration for 16 months and, although a lot of work had started under the previous administration, she was pleased with the Council's performance overall.  She explained that it was important to be able to use real time data to see where action was needed and direct our attention to it eg swimming pools lost a lot of carbon which needed to be addressed.  She stressed that a cross party approach was needed to resolve this issue.
• The term residual waste on page 14 of the report was possibly related to road issues and sweeping which had moved to being under the residual waste category, as well as staffing matters.
• When comparing CIPFA data with other Local Authorities, it was possible to see that our performance was not as good as it could be in relation to waste so this was being addressed.

Sustainable Housing

• The timescale for bringing up the entire stock to an EPC C rating was not yet known as the properties were currently being audited to understand what was needed.  The state of the HRA was likely to constrain how quickly work could be undertaken but all Authorities who had housing stock were in the same position and looking for Government funding.
•  A tab on ES Lettings would be added to the Dashboard and details of how much ES Lettings had brought down lettings charges and how many people had used the scheme would be circulated to Members.
• Information on the number of tenants still owed a rent refund would also be circulated. 
•  East Suffolk was trying to work with partners to address the root causes of homelessness, however, the provision of temporary accommodation was an issue with some people having to be housed outside of the district.    
• Following the Scrutiny Committee's previous recommendation to engage an Empty Homes Officer, the number of Long Term Empty Homes had decreased.
• The housing target was 916 and 857 had been delivered last year, however, the Government wanted East Suffolk to deliver 1600 per year.  The problem was that planning permission could be granted but developers could sit on land, struggle to employ skilled staff to build the houses or have problems sourcing aggregates. 
• Clarification on how often the Housing Needs Assessment was completed, if it had addressed the housing need in the district eg the supply of 2/3 bed properties and how long people tended to stay in temporary housing was requested.
•  Incentives were needed to encourage people to downsize to free up existing housing stock as there were very few affordable smaller properties.  It was hoped that the new Developer Charter would encourage them to build smaller properties.
• All the housing stock was being audited to try to understand the extent of the problem but retrofitting had not yet started because the Council would not be able to afford to do it all.
• Affordable housing was a challenge with many areas not having any despite having new developments in their area.  This was because it was a negotiation with the Planning Team and developers were able to demonstrate that the provision of affordable housing was not viable.  Some parishes also had limited space for development and applications with under 10 dwellings did not require affordable housing.
• There was no target for Neighbourhood Plans but parishes were encouraged to have them as they would be taken into account when planning applications were considered.  Parishes that had them benefitted from 25% CIL rather than the usual 15% but it was a drawn out process and costly, although Council officers provided support to produce them.
• The data went up to October 2024, however, if a development was still in the process it was not included.  The Dashboard would, in future, include the number of houses built in a parish. 

Tackling Inequalities

• The Enabling Community Budgets (ECB) were included under this theme as they helped to seed fund projects that tackled inequalities eg cookery classes to improve quality of life, or a chat bench to tackle isolation.
• Project leaders were asked to demonstrate the benefit to a community and a lot of detail was available regarding the organisations that received funding, however, it was difficult and, in some cases, costly to measure the benefit. 
• The data packs contained information on communities eg population, demographics, social isolation etc and a decision needed to be made on how much of this should be included within the Dashboards.  The Council needed to know about communities but it was difficult to measure, although some information was available eg through SODA.
• Outcomes from ECB projects were monitored but if they did not return their evaluation sheets then they did not receive any more money because it was important the Council was able to evidence it was delivering value for money.
• The Community Partnership tab on the Dashboard was quite detailed eg 142 projects related to social isolation so it was possible to drill down but it was work in progress and the whole area of impact measurement was a challenge, although the voluntary sector had done a lot of work on this. 
• Although the Dashboard indicator suggested that ECBs were being allocated towards the end of the year, it was clarified that some Councillors had spent theirs early on, some had allocated money which then had to be redirected and some had pooled theirs to fund larger projects, however, it was acknowledged that Councillors could receive more support and advice on their ECBs achieving maximum impact.  The point was made that informing local community groups, the voluntary sector as well as the Parish Council that funding was available usually helped bring forward suitable projects.  It was confirmed that funding for ECBs was available for at least the next two years.
• Increased participation in sport or activity was a longstanding target for the Communities theme and the leisure contracts included footfall as an indicator.  Since the new contracts had been put in place there was more focus on community engagement so the operators had started to do some work on wider measures eg social isolation, children overweight etc and it was clear more people were now going to the leisure centres who would not have done so previously.
• There was a balance to be struck between the leisure centre operators' need to gather data and a person's privacy, especially in relation to their socio/economic background, however, some data was available and would be circulated to Members, along with details of the outreach that operators provided. The Leader stated that the Cabinet Member was also analysing gaps in the market, footfall, financial support and the offer of free spaces etc.  It was noted that the Waveney operator had paid the Council money back as their income had increased.
• In relation to social prescribing for sports facilities/swimming etc, GP surgeries had data and it was suggested that Members ask their local surgeries for it as well as a tour. Feel Good Suffolk also referred people to various projects eg smoking cessation which would be added to the Dashboard.  It was acknowledged that the Council need to measure the gaps and show on the Dashboard how they were being plugged. 

Thriving Economy

• The way that beach huts were being offered eg sale/hire was being reviewed as part of the Assets Strategy.
• The number of planning applications that did not meet the national target of 13 weeks would be circulated to Members.
• There was a slight decline in the number of properties paying business rates but it was likely that some of the reasons were out of the Council's control, however, clarification would be sought on this from the Economic Development and Regeneration Team.  The current figures only used data from the Business Rates system so more work needed to be done on data gathering to see if the Council could better predict trends and show where businesses need more help.  Some market towns were already being targeted with support eg an event in Darsham would be held shortly to increase footfall and stimulate businesses and details of the event would be circulated to Members.  The Leader stated that she would also ask the Head of Economic Development and Regeneration to update some slides she had seen a year ago regarding vacancies and shop fronts in market towns for circulation to all Members. 
• There was a lot of demographic information for the district which was subject to many external influences so there was a need to cross reference the Council's KPIs with other data sources to back our information up.  Whilst some information might not be put on to the main Dashboard tiles, links could be added to other sources including the data profile pack on Fred to ensure that information was joined up.
• Drilling down on why people visited East Suffolk was very difficult as they had to be stopped and asked, however, the Council was investigating ways to try and record better tourism data eg the reasons why they were visiting, which might include seeing film locations, and where they were spending their money.  Data was available from events the Council had some control over eg First Light and Tour of Britain which had 113,000 spectators and was estimated to have brought in £1M to the local economy. The Council also worked with the Destination Management Organisation (DMO) under Visit Suffolk who carried out surveys asking why people visited and their annual report might capture some of this information.  

The Chair thanked the Leader, Deputy Leader and Officers and invited them to sum up.  The Deputy Leader stressed that more information would be added to the Dashboards over time but the Council needed to make sure the data was used to help provide continuous improvement given the cost pressures were not decreasing and the demands on the Council were increasing.

The Chair invited the Committee to debate and suggest any recommendations.

Councillor Lynch suggested adding KPIs in relation to the number of people in temporary accommodation.

Councillor Bennett reiterated his concern that the number of fly tips had increased over the last year but stated that the data available was superb and suggested the public would be excited to access a lot of this information.

Councillor Molyneux suggested that KPIs be added in relation to the influence of planning decisions that had resulted in better building standards eg carbon emissions, and how effective biodiversity had been in terms of introducing wildlife etc.  In relation to the Council's struggles regarding retrofitting, he stated that the National Retrofit Hub was a great resource that allowed Local Authorities to investigate all avenues of innovative finance and technological solutions to tackle the problem.  With regard to ECB funding and using the data packs, he suggested that the Community Partnerships should have more of a focus and targets to ensure that funding was spent wisely. 

On the proposition of Councillor Molyneux, seconded by Councillor Back it was

RESOLVED

1. That the report be noted and the Leader consider adding the following KPIs, as well as investigating the Council having a Social Value Toolkit:

• The number of people in temporary accommodation.
• The influence of planning decisions that had resulted in better building standards eg carbon emissions.
• How effective biodiversity had been in terms of introducing wildlife etc. 

2. That responses to the following Members' queries be provided to the next meeting:

• Evidence from Suffolk County Council that no link had been found between recycling closures/the new booking system and the number of fly tips. 
• Clarification on the term Residual Waste on page 14 of the report.
• How much ES Lettings had brought down lettings charges and how many people had used the scheme.
• The number of tenants still owed a rent refund.
• The number of people being temporarily housed outside of the district and how long people tended to stay in temporary housing.
• How the Housing Needs Assessment was completed, if the housing need in the district had been addressed eg the supply of 2/3 bed properties.
• Data on leisure centre clients in relation to their socio/economic background to see if they were tackling inequalities.
• The outreach that both leisure centre operators provided.
• The number of planning applications that did not meet the national target of 13 weeks.
• Details of some of the reasons why there was a slight decline in the number of properties paying business rates.

The Chair reminded the Committee that, at the next meeting to be held on 21 November 2024, a Review of East Suffolk Services Limited's Business Plan would take place. In addition, it was noted that an Informal Budget Scrutiny Meeting would be held on 14 November at 6.30pm on Teams.

On the proposition of Councillor Lynch, seconded by Councillor Ninnmey it was

RESOLVED

That, under Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972 (as amended) the public be excluded from the meeting for the following item of business on the grounds that it involved the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in Paragraph 3 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Act.