Report of Head of Corporate Strategy and Communications

The report shows the results for the key performance indicators identified for Watford Borough Council’s in-house services for the end of year 2016/17.

The scrutiny committee received a report of the Head of Corporate Strategy and Communications setting out the end of year results for the council’s key performance indicators.

The Head of Corporate Strategy and Communications referred to the results of the performance indicators for planning.  These results were an example of where the service was performing well above the target.  Members may wish to ask why it was set at 90% or whether the target could be more challenging.  Planning performed well against benchmarking information.  She advised that targets were set by the Head of Service. 

The Customer Service Section Head informed the scrutiny committee that the Customer Service Centre received nearly 100,000 contacts each year.  36,000 of these were face to face in the Town Hall.  The indicators were based on standard contact centre performance measure.  However, the world was changing and the quality of service was important not just the volume of users.  The number of visitors was split across a range of access channels, including online which was steadily increasing.

Following a question from Councillor Martins about the calls to Revenues and Benefits not being included, the Customer Service Section Head explained that the service used the same telephone system but the data was collated separately via the service’s own contact centre. 

Councillor Martins felt it was important that service’s information was monitored.  He said that people needed to understand what was happening in the service.

The Committee and Scrutiny Officer informed the scrutiny committee that Revenues and Benefits performance indicators were monitored by Outsourced Services Scrutiny Panel.  However it was noted that the scrutiny panel did not receive information about the service’s response times for calls.

The Head of Housing explained each of the Housing performance indicators and set the context for the targets.  He informed the scrutiny committee how officers were able to calculate the expected number of affordable homes that would be completed in the year.  It was closely tied to the number of developments in the town.  Officers would attempt to do more to attract external grants that could be used for developing affordable homes in the area.  It was expected that in the coming five or ten years there would be a lot more developments that would provide further affordable homes.  This was particularly due to the regeneration developments to be progressed in the town.

Following a question about the 35% requirement for affordable accommodation in new developments, the Head of Housing advised that some authorities set a higher percentage.  However officers realised it was necessary to be sensible and did not want to put off developers if the percentage was too high.  It was a balancing act.  It may be possible to review the required percentage.  He explained the different levels of affordable homes.  Social rent was 60% of the local market rent.  Affordable rent was 80% of the local market rent. 

In response to a question about the target of 90 affordable homes completed within the year, the Head of Housing explained that a target was not relevant for this particular indicator.  Officers were able to reasonably predict the number of properties that were expected.  The reason the figure was lower would be due to development timescales slipping. 

Councillor Asif Khan stated that the council needed to be bold and build more social housing.  He was aware that some councils had taken developers to court for not providing the required percentage of affordable homes.

The Head of Housing informed councillors that Housing was consulted on planning applications and was being more robust about developers’ proposals.  Officers were requiring justification from the developer as to why they were not providing the relevant amount and the service was challenging viability statements. 

Following a comment from Councillor Williams about the lower target for 2017/18, the Head of Housing confirmed it was as a result of the known developments due to come forward during the year.  He said that in future he would ensure additional commentary was provided in the report.

The Head of Housing then referred to the indicators related to homelessness.  It was not possible to set a target for these indicators as it was not reliant on officers’ work but the volume of people approaching the council.  The initial information had been broken down further; setting out the reasons people approached the council as homeless.  Previously the main reason for people approaching the council was due to the family unit breaking down.  However currently the highest number of people was due to the loss of private sector tenancies being terminated.  The average difference between local housing allowance and rents was 30%.  This was increasing month by month.  It was expected that the local housing allowance would be frozen for the remainder of this Parliament.  The local authority was not able to freeze the private sector rents in the same way.  Any action on private sector rents would need to be agreed by the Government. 

The Head of Housing stated that the council was working with Watford Community Housing Trust, through the joint venture, to create new affordable accommodation. 

In response to a question from the Chair about parental evictions, the Head of Housing advised that there was a process which officers worked through for each individual case.  The council had a statutory duty to take on those young people under 18.  There was much good work with the county council in this area.  Currently the biggest pressure on the council was the number of families approaching the council. 

The Head of Housing then asked councillors to note the number of households living in temporary accommodation.  He said that members may feel the level had stagnated, but he compared it to the situation in Luton.  He felt the council should be able to achieve the target of 200 and the figures were monitored weekly.  Any additional increase in the number of households in temporary accommodation would affect the council financially.  Over the last year the service had managed to reduce the net cost of temporary accommodation by stopping some of the more expensive arrangements.  The council continued to work with the Housing Trust and other housing associations. 

Councillor Watkin, Portfolio Holder, commented that the work done by the Head of Housing and his team was critical.  The creation of the new temporary accommodation was critical for the council’s finances.  Many people approaching the council could only afford the social rent levels in the area; most developers offered affordable rent accommodation.  This was more than many could afford to pay. 

Councillor S Johnson, Portfolio Holder for Housing, said that councillors may not be happy with 35% contribution in new developments and it may be an area that needed reviewing.  He cautioned that a higher percentage could mean that less development would come forward.  The council needed to acquire the most affordable housing it could from the current system. 

The Head of Housing informed the scrutiny committee about the number of re-lets available over the last year.  This had reduced significantly over the last few years. 

Councillor Grimston noted that there were many older people living in two or three bedroom properties.  She enquired whether people were asked to move to smaller accommodation.

The Head of Housing explained that the housing associations provided incentives for people to move.  However it was necessary to make any offer attractive to the person.

In response to a question about the council building property, the Head of Housing responded that the council was working on this through the joint vehicle.  The first 40 units of temporary accommodation would be available later this year.  There would also be 32 apartment units.  Moving forward the biggest challenge would be financially.

The Head of Housing referred to the remaining performance measures.  The final one was the annual check on the number of rough sleepers within the area.  The council worked with New Hope.  Recently they had been successful in obtaining a grant of £320,000 over the next two years to help with this area of work.

RESOLVED –

1.      that the scrutiny committee notes the performance of the council’s KPIs for 2016/17 for in-house services and that its comments be noted.

2.      that the scrutiny committee notes the targets for the council’s KPIs for in-house services 2016/17 and that its comments be noted.