Agenda item

The CE introduced the report and informed Members that whilst the preceding Performance Report focused on the Corporate Plan and its objectives, this did not allow for comparison with other authorities. As a result, considerable efforts had been made to measure the Council’s performance against others on key areas of service delivery, and this report was the continued development of that work.

Questions and Discussion

      i.        Cllr C Cushing referred to data that showed that the level of household recycling had deteriorated, and asked how much it had declined, the reasons for this, and any actions taken to address this. The DFC stated that the Council sought to improve recycling rates as much as possible, with lower levels of contamination than many neighbouring authorities. He added that despite this, improving recycling rates remained a challenge, with higher rates at neighbouring authorities often the result of food waste collections, which would have a significant carbon footprint for NNDC. It was noted that food waste collections also had a significant cost implication, and it would be cheaper to promote recycling and the reduction of food waste.

     ii.        Cllr T Adams noted that neighbouring authorities had similar or in some cases worse recycling rates, and it was unfortunate that overall the County did not perform well in recycling. He added that there may be Government funding available in the future for food waste collections, but for now, more emphasis had to be placed on promoting recycling and reducing contamination.

    iii.        Cllr W Fredericks noted that supermarket food waste was declining, and whilst this was positive it meant that more food was required for food larders to support those in need.

   iv.        Cllr N Housden referred to total expenditure for central services by head of population, and noted that the Council appeared to be spending above average, and asked if there was any reason for this. The CE replied that data was not yet available for 21-22 as the external audit had not been completed, but comparisons were being made to better understand this metric and why NNDC ranked above average in terms of expenditure.

     v.        Cllr J Rest asked why CIPFA items listed on p198 were blank, to which the DFC replied that it was intended for management commentary, but the CE would seek to determine why the information was missing.

   vi.        Cllr V Holliday praised the report but suggested that paper copies for all data were not necessary if the information could be accessed online. The Chairman agreed and stated that recent additions had been very helpful for understanding the Council’s performance, but it had added considerable weight to agendas. Cllr N Housden said that it would be preferable to access information online to give Members more time to review data. The CDA replied that a new intranet page had been set-up that would provide access to this information which Members could be directed to.

  vii.        Cllr T Adams referred to the birth of businesses per 10k population measure, and suggested that it may not be particularly reliable, given that a high proportion of the North Norfolk population was over retirement age, and would no longer be economically active. The CE suggested that it would be helpful for the Council to consider this on release of anticipated ONS data, and noted that recent headlines that suggested that North Norfolk had the second lowest level of economic activity in the Country may be skewed by data including all residents aged 16 and over. He added that using data for those economically active between 16 and 65 would suggest that the District is mid-table in terms of economic performance, and this may be worthy of consideration by the Committee.

 viii.        The Chairman summarised the recommendations and suggested that consideration would need to be given to changing the dataset outlined in recommendation 3 on the rate of births of new enterprises per 10k population. The DSGOS suggested that the Committee may want to amend dataset to include those aged 16-65, given the significant proportion of the population that were no longer economically active. He added that the Committee may also want to consider whether hyperlinks to datasets were adequate, as outlined in recommendation 5 of the contextual measures.

   ix.        Cllr V Holliday referred to the birth of new enterprises and noted that CIPFA nearest neighbours performance was better, and the Council’s lower performance should not be disregarded. Members agreed that it would be preferrable to measure the rate of births of new enterprises amongst those of working age from 16-65, as opposed to 16 and over. It was agreed that this information should be provided on a quarterly basis, and that hyperlinks would be adequate for viewing datasets.

     x.        The recommendations were proposed en bloc by Cllr S Bütikofer and seconded by Cllr J Toye.

RESOLVED

1.    To receive and note the benchmarking information.

2.    That no further recommendations to Cabinet to investigate specific levels of performance and/or to take action are required on this occasion.

3.    To request that the dataset used to monitor business demography be amended, so that dataset CIPFA 9 - rate of births of new enterprises per 10,000 resident population accounts for those aged 16-65.

4.    To receive and note the information in the Contextual Measures Report – first review.

5.    That no further recommendations to Cabinet to investigate specific datasets and/or to take action are required on this occasion.

6.    That the frequency of further reports remains quarterly alongside existing performance reports.

7.    That no additional reports are required for different comparison groups

8.    That hyperlinks will suffice instead of printed copies of additional attachments/data.