The subject of the decision
The Strategic Advisor (Corporate) submitted a report to advise Members on the Council’s performance at the end of quarter three 2021/22, covering the period from 1 October to 31 December 2021.
Members considered and noted the progress made against each of the key projects and activities set out in the Corporate Business Plan.
The report contained 52 projects/activities and 34 key performance indicators.
Of the projects/activities 3 was marked as complete or closed, 43 were on target and 6 had concerns over their deadlines or outputs being achieved. Of the listed KPIs 25 were reported on the RAG report, 18 were on target, 4 had concerns on their target being achieved and 3 had significant concerns.
Councillor M Fitzgerald moved the report for noting.
Alternative options considered
The reason for the decision
To advise members of progress on the Corporate Business Plan priorities/activities and KPIs at the end of quarter three 2021/22.
That the report be noted.
Members considered the Quarter 3 performance report for 2021/22 which reported progress on the key projects and activities and corporate KPIs which are based on Council Strategy Delivery Plan.
Members raised comments in relation to auditing of grant allocations, the Otley Road Scheme in Keswick, the future of the AIP as part of the LGR process, disabled facilities grants and payments to local Cumbrian businesses.
Regarding the KPI ‘Review the council’s property and asset management strategy’ members asked whether arrangements were still in place to make community asset transfers?.
It was explained that yes arrangements were still in place through the Councils Acquisitions and Disposals Policy.
In relation to the KPI ‘Progress strategic green infrastructure and biodiversity projects and encourage environmental volunteering’ members enquired about the status on the Northside non-statutory allotments.
It was explained issues were still being worked through with the two remaining tenants.
Members also asked what was the plan for the Water Environment Grant?.
Officers agreed to get a response from the relevant team on what options were available for moving forward.
In relation to the Maryport Regeneration Programme members asked for an update on the plans, in particular following the change around the Empire Yard project and on contingencies in relation to increasing costs.
Officers provided the following response ‘although the scheme will not be progressing as originally planned it is proposed to continue with the planned acquisition of the land at the centre of the scheme with the aim of creating an open accessible space that can be used for parking, markets, and access. The council may need to resort to Compulsory Purchase to acquire the land. It is also important to say that the funding element for the Empire Yard will not be lost from the Maryport programme.
Every Future High Street scheme in the country has been affected by an increase in construction costs. By amending the scope of the Empire Yard project this will release funding and ensure that key projects including, The Carlton, The Wave, Christchurch and public realm will still be delivered to a high standard’.
In relation to KPI ‘Complete the commission for the Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation Assessment and evaluate the outcome against the site allocation in Local Plan Part 2’, members asked what the plan was now that the draft report had been received.
It was explained that from the Assessment report it was clear that a single site would not address the accommodation issues currently being experienced in Workington therefore, the Council had commissioned a further study from the same company to go back and look at what other solutions could work and be accepted in our area. It was hoped that piece of work could be completed in a couple of months and therefore Scrutiny asked for the item to be included in the next years’ work programme for consideration.
Members noted the contents of the report.