Agenda item

Pre-Scrutiny - Performance Management Framework






Options considered:

To present to Overview and Scrutiny the outcome of the Performance Management Framework Project. That is a new Performance Management Framework for pre-Scrutiny.


  1. Continue with the current performance management framework.
  2. Withdraw the current framework and not replace it.
  3. Produce a new Performance Management Framework.




The attached Performance Management Framework, Appendix X, meets the needs of the Council and provides a framework that is fit for purpose.







Reasons for



Overview and Scrutiny Committee is requested to review the revised Performance Management Framework and make recommendations for amendment to Cabinet.


To ensure the Council has a Performance Management Framework that is fit for purpose.



(Papers relied on to write the report, which do not contain exempt information and which are not published elsewhere)




Cabinet Member(s)

Cllr T Adams

Ward(s) affected


Contact Officer, telephone number and email:

Helen Thomas,



Cllr T Adams – Council Leader introduced the report and informed Members that the report outlined the proposals for how performance would be examined moving forward, and this was an opportunity for the Committee to provide input into the process.


Questions and Discussion


       i.          Cllr C Cushing referred to delivery of affordable homes and asked how many would be delivered in 2022/23, taking into account the impact of nutrient neutrality. It was noted that this question related to the next agenda item on performance itself, rather than discussion of the framework.


      ii.          The DSGOS informed Members that the reporting framework addressed the way in which the council’s performance would be reported going forward, which had been adapted to take into account suggestions from Members. The PPMO stated that the key change would be adapting the organisational culture, to improve the quality and timing of reporting. She added that to aid this process, a substantial amount of guidance had been produced for officers to improve planning and reporting of performance. It was confirmed that the framework could continue to be adapted if necessary.


     iii.          Cllr V Holliday referred to key performance measures on p213 and asked whether these were comprehensive or could be added to, as she was not comfortable with the existing limited selection. She added that in regards to climate, coast and environment, the Council performed well on coastal issues but was fourth worst for recycling rates amongst similar authorities. It was noted that the number and value of visitors to North Norfolk was similarly not an all-encompassing measure of business growth, and quality of life did not address the number of sewage outflow incidents. The PPMO replied that the key performance measures were taken directly from the current Corporate Plan, but below these figures were management and service indicators. Cllr V Holliday replied that focusing solely on performance of corporate objectives overlooked what was actually happening in the District, and suggested that wider issues should be considered.


    iv.          Cllr N Housden asked whether changes to the framework were the result of comments made during discussion of the last performance report. The PPMO confirmed that this report focused solely on the framework that the performance reporting fell within, which covered how and when performance would be reported. She added that the performance report itself had been amended following feedback from the Committee to report by exception on red and amber performance measures, with further information available on InPhase, if required.


      v.          Cllr V Holliday stated that it was important to present to the public a real picture of performance that included information beyond the KPIs determined by the Corporate Plan. The CE replied that whilst the framework focused on the structure of reporting, the content of the report and the issues raised related to the content of the performance report itself. He added that benchmarking data provided by LG Inform did not always align with the measures set by the Council to determine performance against delivering the Corporate Plan. It was noted that in terms of recycling, the Council did not perform as well as its peers as there were no food waste collections, and it was therefore not chosen as a key priority of the Corporate Plan.


    vi.          Cllr T Adams stated that the performance information requested was included as part of the benchmarking report, and accepted that recycling was an issue that could be improved upon, which could be included as part of the performance report if Members deemed it necessary.


   vii.          The Chairman asked whether concerns related to making all performance information available to the public, to which Cllr V Holliday replied that the she sought a synthesis of performance information to provide context and understanding. The CE replied that it was important to note that some of this data would be contextual, such as the number of people on the housing waiting list, whilst the number of people housed per quarter would represent the Council’s performance. He added that adding contextual data for all aspects of the Corporate Plan would require an extensive report that would not be possible with the available resource. It was suggested that the reports needed to find a balance between the two to determine what level of contextual data was appropriate, taking into account existing benchmarking reports. The PPMO noted that benchmarking data covered the previous quarter to performance reports, and this could create confusion.


  viii.          Cllr V Holliday proposed that limited contextual information be added to the performance reports where appropriate, to better understand performance information. Cllr T Adams suggested that it would be helpful to discuss further which contextual information was required, though he was generally supportive of the proposal.


    ix.          Cllr N Housden suggested that benchmarking reports could be broadened, as there were wider issues that required consideration such as water quality, and sewage outflows. The CE replied that the responsibilities of external bodies such as Anglian Water and the NHS provided contextual data that related to North Norfolk, but they did not relate to performance of the authority itself. He added that the Committee’s terms of reference did allow for scrutiny of these external bodies, but they did not constitute part of the Council’s performance. It was noted that the performance reports should focus primarily on the actions and performance of the Council against the commitments made in the Corporate Plan, or for statutory services. The CE noted that LG Inform benchmarking data focused on core services such as Council Tax collection, benefits performance, and bin collections which did provide an element of performance monitoring against other Councils. Cllr W Fredericks noted that several actions had been taken to address issues raised relating to benefits performance during the previous benchmarking discussion, and Members should be reassured that relative performance would continue to improve.


      x.          Cllr V Holliday’s recommendation was seconded by Cllr N Housden.




1.     To recommend to Cabinet that consideration is given to the inclusion of limited contextual information to support performance data, subject to further discussion with Cllr T Adams and Cllr V Holliday.


Supporting documents: