Issue - meetings

– report by Paul Carter, Leader of the Council and Robert Hardy, Director of Improvement and Engagement)

(1)       This report detailed the final draft Performance Improvement Plan (PIP) which had been prepared in response to the comments and conclusions of the Corporate Assessment report which was published in June 2008.  The Improvement Plan summarised the Inspectors’ comments and the proposed responses, including the means of monitoring future progress.  Most of the Inspectors’ comments reflected issues which KCC had itself identified as requiring improvement and the PIP provided the Council with a means of tracking progress.  Not all of the Inspectors’ comments and conclusions were considered to be valid and so did not feature as proposed actions in the PIP.

(2)       During the course of discussions Mr Ridings said, and it was agreed, that the monitoring of the outcomes from the Performance Improvement Plan needed to be undertaken by officers in close collaboration with the appropriate Cabinet Member.  Mr Gilroy also said that this work had highlighted some tensions between the County Council and the Audit Commission in the way that public satisfaction surveys were being undertaken and this was an issue which was the subject of continuing discussions with the Commission.

(3)       Mr Ferrin referred to the Inspectors’ comments relating to waste management and recycling rates.  He said that Kent’s disposal costs were likely to rise in the Medium Term as a result of a decrease in the availability of landfill and the fact that the County Council had contractual commitments in relation to incineration.  The situation was not helped by the fact that there had been difficulties at the Allington Incinerator and that facility was still not operating at full capacity.  Mr Ferrin said there had been a fall in the amount of waste arisings and recycling rates were increasing and as a result the County Council would likely meet its set targets on these two matters over the medium term.  Mr Austerberry said that the Audit Commissions’ comments regarding KCC’s costs in relation to waste had to be viewed in the context of particular circumstances related to the South East.  He said because of a number of factors KCC was not alone in having higher costs and that other authorities such as Hampshire, Surrey and both East and West Sussex had proportionally higher costs than other authorities outside the South East.

(4)       Cabinet then agreed the contents of the draft Performance Improvement Plan and the arrangements and timeframe for future monitoring.

(1)       A joint consultation paper on the new assessment framework for Comprehensive Area Assessment (CAA) was published at the end of July 2008.  CAA will be significantly more challenging than the former Comprehensive Performance Assessment because of the emphasis on the assessment of collective public service performance.

(2)       Mr Gilroy highlighted paragraph 4 of the report which set out a number of issues of concern in relation to the proposed CAA inspection framework.  He said there was a considerable amount of detail lacking from the consultation but it was safe to assume that there was likely to be an increased burden on local authorities as a result of CAA.  Mr Chard said the new proposals essentially required a significant element of judgement to be made by inspectors and therefore the Council would need to ensure that the evidence provided and the assumptions made about its future prospects were the principal grounds on which is was judged.

(3)       Cabinet agreed that the Leader and Chief Executive, in consultation with the Chairman and opposition party group leaders for the Corporate Policy Overview Committee sign off the final KCC response to this consultation.