Agenda item

The Partnerships and Performance Section Head introduced the report and went through the various sections.  In response to questions from members; the Partnerships and Performance Section Head and Section Head, Waste, Recycling and Streets:

·        Explained that the council had a good relationship with Veolia.  The Section Head, Waste, Recycling and Streets spoke daily with the contract managers and there was a regular diary of meetings with Veolia staff (and with rigorous finance meetings).

·        Clarified that prosecutions for fly posting could only take place when the actual posting was witnessed.  A current scrap metal fly posting issue was discussed and it was explained that it was satisfactory for some posters in relation to fairs and circuses to be displayed.  The officers discussed matters in relation to a fly posting task group involving planning services, and emphasised that Watford dealt with illegal fly posting robustly (as compared to some other areas) – albeit legal procedures were complicated.

·        Clarified, in relation to item ES4 in the report (levels of litter), that a lower figure was good for that indicator.  It was explained how work was conducted with various businesses seeking to ensure that their litter was cleared – although legislation placed the onus on the business to do so in these circumstances.  The Watford Bid Team could be asked to look further in to this issue.

·        Explained, with regard to item ES8 in the report (waste, street and parks complaints), that the figures related to individual complaints escalated to the Client Team when the complainant was not satisfied with the Veolia response.  The escalation process was explained and a paper circulated to members in this regard.  Councillor Taylor commented that the table gave a comparison of performance over time – with a trend that the service was improving.   The officers outlined how the condition of a street was assessed after it had been cleaned.

·        Confirmed that the pop up toilets were still available in the High Street.

·        Undertook, with regard to item LC4 in the report (number of complaints and compliments at the Woodside Leisure Centre), to establish the accuracy of the apparent low level of complaints.

·        Undertook, in relation to item LC6 in the report (throughput at the Central Leisure Centre that were concessions), to discuss the matter with SLM to ensure they had a consistency of approach.

·        Undertook, with respect to item LC7 in the report (Central Leisure Centre membership), to raise with SLM whether the number of women only swimming sessions were sufficient and to discuss the apparent lack of ethnic minority group membership at the centre.  Councillor Taylor explained that he had spoken about the women only swimming issue with the Corporate, Leisure and Communities Section Head and it would appear that at some sessions the participants were on occasion talking as opposed to swimming - and that all sessions were not fully subscribed.  He had asked for more information on the subscription levels.

·        Undertook to establish whether there was any relationship between the number of complaints increasing at the leisure centres and the number of people using the facilities falling (as indicated in items LC8 and LC5 respectively in the report).

The Panel discussed catering contracts in relation to weddings at the Colosseum and the provision of alcohol at such events.  Members also discussed how the identity of meter and resident’s parking bays were indicated so that the difference between the two was clear to motorists.

In response to a question from members with regard to item RD2 in the report (tribunal appeals), the Partnerships and Performance Section Head undertook to investigate whether a target in relation to the number of appeals lost should be introduced (although this might be difficult to apply due to the variable reasons for losing cases).  Members commented that the number of appeals lost as compared to the number of parking tickets issued was very low.  The Chair explained that he had recently had a meeting with Parking Services where issues around appeals and the Parking Services Annual Report (an agenda item for the next meeting) had been discussed.

The Panel debated issues around delays in the reinstatement of parking bays following their suspension and the involvement of the Parking Shop and the County Council.  The Partnerships and Performance Section Head undertook to suggest to Parking Services that steps should be taken to prevent wardens issuing tickets when works at a parking bay were completed but the bay had not been officially reinstated.

In response to further questions from members, the Partnership and Performance Section Head:

·        Undertook, with regard to items RB1 and RB2 in the report (the average time to process housing benefit claims and change of circumstances), to suggest that the targets be reduced to 20% and 13% respectively.

·        Clarified, in relation to item RB3 in the report (collection rates of council tax), that the above target figure was indicated as a percentage.

·        Undertook, in relation to item HR1 in the report (sickness absence days lost per employee), to obtain a break down of the sickness absence days.  She explained the return to work interview procedure and how this was designed to assist those returning to work. 

Members discussed stress in the work place and the Partnership and Performance Section Head explained that the council employed a health and welfare champion.  There was also a stress policy for managers.  The best approach was to try and identify issues before they became a problem.  The Panel talked about the provision of relaxation classes and the closure of the canteen (and how staff were consulted) – they considered that officers being properly cared for lead to a more motivated workforce.  The Partnership and Performance Section Head undertook to feedback to the council’s Human Resources that the Panel considered relaxation classes would be beneficial to staff. 

With reference to item IT1 in the report (incidents closed by Amicus), the Chair informed the Panel that he had recently had a meeting with IT Services and that this was early days for key performance indicators. However, a full report in regards to IT Services (the new structure, plans for the future and the challenges to overcome) would come before the panel at its next meeting on 17th January.

RESOLVED that -

1.      the Panel note the report.

2.      the actions requested be undertaken.