Agenda item

Matt Wagner, (Chief Analyst); and Simon Jones, (Corporate Director for Growth, Environment &Transport) were in attendance for this item.

1)    Mr Wagner updated Members on the following KPI movements:

a)    Introduced the report and explained that it contained data up to the end of June 2026. Members were advised that of the 58 Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) included within the dashboard, 40 had achieved target and were rated green, three had achieved performance above the floor standard and were rated amber, and four were below the floor standard and rated red. Four KPIs were not reported during Quarter 1 due to occurring at differing times of the year and the remaining seven were unable to be reported as planned.

a)    The Committee was advised that the four red-rated indicators related to: HT02 – All Highways and Transportation enquiries requiring a response that were responded to within 28 days, HT08 – Emergency incidents attended within two hours, EW4 – Percentage of local planning authority requests for advice from the Heritage Service responded to within 21 days; and EW5 – Percentage of local planning authority requests for advice from the Ecological Advice Service responded to within 21 days.

b)    Members were informed that a number of new Highways and Transportation KPIs had been introduced for 2026/27. Officers explained that several new indicators had not been reported due to ongoing validation work, system integration changes and the introduction of the new Highways Term Maintenance Contract.

c)    In relation to HT02 and HT08, officers advised that performance had been affected by a combination of adverse weather conditions, high service demand and the transition from the previous highway’s contractor to the new provider, Ringway. Members were informed that systems and reporting arrangements continued to be embedded and that performance was expected to improve as those arrangements matured.

d)    The Committee noted that all emergency incidents had been attended, however system integration issues had affected the ability to fully validate performance reporting during the quarter. Officers confirmed that work continued with Ringway to improve reporting accuracy and confidence in the data being presented.

2)    Members discussed the following matters:

a)    Questions were raised regarding the introduction of the new highway’s contractor and the comparability of performance data with figures produced under previous contractual arrangements. Officers explained that KPI definitions remained largely unchanged and that validation work was being undertaken to ensure consistency and reliability of future trend analysis. Members were advised that additional clarification could be provided once the new systems had become fully established.

b)    Concerns were expressed regarding performance against highway enquiry response times, emergency attendance times and pothole repairs. Members highlighted examples from their local divisions where highway defects remained unresolved and queried whether improvements reported within countywide data were being experienced consistently across Kent.

c)    In response, officers acknowledged the challenges associated with mobilisation of the new contract and advised that Ringway had inherited a significant backlog of work. Members were informed that considerable effort was being directed towards validating completed works, improving workflow management and reducing outstanding cases. It was reported that early operational indicators suggested improvements were being made and that performance was expected to improve in future quarters.

d)    Members queried when the transition period associated with the new contract should be considered complete and sought assurances that performance expectations would continue to be robustly managed. Officers advised that ongoing performance monitoring remained in place and that the Cabinet Member had requested a detailed timetable for resolving outstanding performance reporting issues and embedding the new contract arrangements.

e)    Discussion took place regarding the amber-rated Household Waste Recycling Centre mystery shopper assessment KPI (WM08). Members sought assurance that the reduction in performance represented a genuine change in service standards rather than a change in methodology. Officers confirmed that a new provider had been appointed to undertake the mystery shopping programme and that changes in scoring methodology had influenced the result. A review of the methodology was underway to ensure future results remained comparable and any relevant changes would be highlighted to Members at the next committee.

f)      Members raised concerns regarding the performance of the Heritage Service (EW4) and the Ecological Advice Service (EW5). Officers explained that increasing planning activity, the introduction of Biodiversity Net Gain requirements and capacity pressures within specialist teams had contributed to delays in responding to planning consultations. Members were advised that recruitment and administrative support arrangements were being implemented to improve performance and reduce backlogs.

g)    Questions were raised regarding the staffing levels required to improve performance within both services. Officers advised that the Ecological Advice Service was currently managing a vacancy and that work was underway with local planning authorities to review funding arrangements, ensure sufficient capacity and improve service resilience. Members were further advised that the expertise provided by both services remained highly valued by district and borough councils.

h)    Members requested that future reports continue to contain explanatory information when KPIs are rated red, together with details of any actions being taken to address underperformance

i)      The Committee discussed the possibility of introducing a KPI relating to repeat pothole repairs undertaken within the two-year warranty period provided under the new highways contract. Officers agreed to consider the suggestion as part of future performance monitoring arrangements.

j)      Members highlighted both positive and negative experiences of highway maintenance works within their divisions. Examples of successful resurfacing schemes were noted, and officers were asked to pass Members’ appreciation on to operational teams where appropriate.

k)    Members welcomed the overall position that 85% of those KPIs reported in Quarter 1 had achieved their target and recognised the work ongoing to improve both highways performance and specialist planning consultation services.

RESOLVED to note the performance dashboard