Agenda item

Report of the Director of Planning and Performance

The Scrutiny Co-ordination Committee considered a report of the Director of Planning and Performance, which set out performance against the One Coventry Plan for the period April 2024 to March 2025.

The report was also due to be considered by the Cabinet at its meeting scheduled for 26^th August 2025.

The Committee noted that the One Coventry Plan sets out the strategic vision for the City of Coventry to 2030 and the Council’s approach to increasing the economic prosperity of both the city and region by improving outcomes and tackling inequalities within our communities; and tackling the causes and consequences of climate change. The current Plan, last refreshed in 2022, covers the period from 2022-2030.

The Plan sets out three delivery priorities:

·  Increasing the economic prosperity of the city and region.

·  Improving outcomes and tackling inequalities within our communities.

·  Tackling the causes and consequences of climate change.

And two enabling priorities:

·  Continued financial sustainability of the Council.

·  The Council's role as a partner, enabler and leader.

The One Coventry Plan Annual Performance Report April 2024 to March 2025 was appended to the report.  The annual review is a high-level report that sets out the trends, actions taken where appropriate, and performance metrics against each of the objectives within the One Coventry Plan in order to make an assessment of the progress made against previous years and to benchmark against other places.  The appendix also included case studies to capture impacts that were less easy to measure numerically.

The Committee were advised that performance against the One Coventry Plan 2022-2030 is measured against 74 metrics.  7 of these were unable to be reported on this year as information was not available and 1 had not been fully developed and had been recorded within the ‘progress not available indicators’.

Of the 66 metrics currently available, for 5 of them it was not possible to say whether they had improved or not as there wasn’t a clear desirable direction of change or because there is only data for the current year.  For the remaining 61 indicators, 34 have improved their position; 7 remained the same and 20 have declined.  Detailed information on each metric was included within the appendix.

It was noted that all key performance indicators that were below target would be considered as part of a deep dive review and that a further report would be submitted to the Committee on 30^th October 2025.

Members asked questions and were provided with responses in the following areas:

·  Action taken to address fly-tipping, including additional cameras and how their locations should be identified. It was noted that there had been an increase in reporting levels which is encouraging. 

·  Whether fly-tipping was more than just anti-social behaviour but more serious organised crime and that there should be a multi-agency approach to the issue. 

·  Concern on levels of Business Rates collection 

·  That although the indicators on NEETS at 16 and 18 seemed similar they were measuring different things, one about when pupils leave school, the second about experiences at post 16. Poor mental health was considered to be a factor in the decline in the data. 

·  Whether the introduction of parking charges on Sundays accounted for a decline in footfall in the city centre 

·  The numbers of children in care who were unaccompanied newly arrived children, compared to those who were in care due to abuse and neglect. 

·  The drop in school readiness at aged 5 is a complex issue which will be looked at in more detail by the Scruco Deep Dive sessions. 

·  That the reduction in recycling rates was disappointing and whether the Council was maximising the opportunity of having the new recycling plant to encourage residents. 

·  The process for agreeing the indicators for biodiversity, as if it’s not being measured then loses can’t be identified. 

·  That although the report was not a statutory requirement it was beneficial to report on performance. The external auditors welcomed the report as it enabled them to form a view on their value for money report. 

·  That there had been community engagement in the development of the plan and the priorities within it. There was commitment from both politicians and senior officers to continue to report on performance in this format.

In addition to those underperforming indicators, the Committee also requested that biodiversity net gain (measure of habitat creation and conservation) be included within the deep dive.

The Committee further noted that, the Council’s performance management framework and reporting arrangements must have due regard to the public sector equality duty under section 149 of the Equality Act 2010. This included the need to eliminate unlawful discrimination, harassment, and victimisation; to meet the needs of people regardless of their background; and to encourage all people to participate in public life, or in other activities where their participation is low. Many of the key priorities set out in the One Coventry Plan were also equality objectives. In addition, a specific set of equality objectives has been agreed and progress against these is reported annually to the Cabinet Member for Policing and Equalities. This contributes to meeting the Equality Act 2010 (Specific Duties) Regulations 2011.

RESOLVED that, the Scrutiny Co-ordination Committee:

1.  Considered and noted the Council’s progress as set out in the performance report set out at Appendix 1 to the report submitted.

2.  Recommend that the Cabinet accept the recommendations in the report.

3.  That Biodiversity Net Gain (measure of habitat creation and conservation) be included within the matters to be considered by the deep dive.

4.  Noted the approach for the mid-year progress report.