Agenda item

(1)                 The third Core Monitoring report, updated to include information for the period up to the end of December 2010, was reported to Cabinet on 4 April 2011.  The report included all of the indicators that were in the September 2010 report considered by the Committee in January 2011.  The format and presentation of the information had been modified slightly in certain areas with the intention of making it clearer and more concise.  The objective was to pick out a number of key areas of activity for Member’s attention rather than seeking to provide information about, and comments on, all of the performance management information that was used operationally within the Directorate.

(2)       The Cabinet Core Monitoring report set out the approach adopted for the Red/Amber/Green (RAG) and Direction of Travel (DoT) assessments; gave an overall KCC-wide summary of performance; and examined a number of cross-KCC indicators, one of which was complaint monitoring where the number of complaints regarding Kent Highway Services (KHS) were significantly higher than those for other KCC services.  The total number of complaints regarding KHS amounted to around 1% of the total number of enquiries that KHS received and was comparable to that in other highway authorities.

(3)          Most of the data included in the Core Monitoring formed part of the management information that was used, in a variety of forms, by managers and leadership teams within the Directorate.  The final Audit Report on Data Quality was published on 23 December 2010 and the overall assurance level was high, the top rating available, with five of the six risk areas receiving the high rating and one the second category, substantial.  On the basis of this report it was reasonable to state that key controls were in place and were effectively applied, data was sound, and the risks of poor quality data being produced and used were low.

(4)       During discussion the following issues were raised:-

(a)               Ms Hohler asked if, when diverting waste to landfill, due to maintenance or breakdown at the plant, did KCC receive any compensation.  Mr Hallett stated that when the plant was going through maintenance and there was a need to switch to landfill, at present landfill was still slightly cheaper.

(b)               Mr Robertson suggested that the Committee should select one of the RAG assessments for scrutiny.  The Chairman suggested private discussions with Members, with a view to discussing at the Committee’s next agenda setting meeting.

(c)               Mr Collor welcomed the reduction in killed or seriously injured people on the roads, and asked if the figures included highways agency roads.  Mr Burr confirmed that they did.

(d)               Mr Harrison referred to the cards residents used to report faulty streetlights, and asked if they were no longer being issued/used.  If that was the case could they be reintroduced  or something similar issued.  Mr Burr undertook to check the situation and discuss the details with Mr Harrison direct.

(5)        RESOLVED that the December 2010 Core Monitoring report for Environment, Highways & Waste be noted.