Agenda item

          The Board received a report of the Chief Executive which detailed the second quarter performance management reports on progress against service plan objectives and performance targets, performance trends/comparisons and factors affecting the services for –

 

·       Economy, Enterprise and Property (Development and Investment)

·       Policy, Planning and Transportation (Highways and Transportation, Logistics and Transport Management, and Building Control and Contaminated Land)

·       Environment and Regulatory Services (Waste and Environmental Improvement and Open Spaces)

·       Commissioning and Complex Care (Housing Strategy)

          In receiving the second quarterly monitoring reports, Councillor Hodgkinson submitted the following questions:

 

Question 1

 

          I note that a major Gateway campaign at Runcorn Station with Virgin Trains was planned. The Borough has a station with hourly trains to Euston in a time of less than two hours. However, I always find there is chaos in the station forecourt and approach road whenever Virgin trains arrive or leave. Would Officers ask Virgin Trains to permit vehicles collecting passengers coming from the London direction to park in the little used west car park for up to say 15 minutes without payment? This would provide more space in the station forecourt for dropping off passengers and reduced congestion. Liverpool Airport offers this facility within the gated area.

 

Response

 

We have put your question to Virgin Trains and their response was that customers can use their car parks for free for 20 minutes and there are signs up to this effect. If this is the case, it is possible people are either not reading/seeing these signs or do not wish to take advantage of the ‘offer’ preferring the convenience of parking as close as possible to the station buildings.

 

Question 2

 

          The Planning Application targets are not being met. As the Development Control Committee Member, I want to ensure that development issues are adequately examined, as we have to live with the consequences. However, are any non-controversial development approvals being delayed due to lack of staff and could this have implications for employment in the Borough? If this is the case, have we looked at the possibility of taking on temporary staff or using planning consultants?

 

Response

 

The speed of planning application processing continues to be impacted due to an increase in the application workload per officer, primarily from the more major applications such as the Mersey Gateway, Ineos and 3MG. Pressure is also exerted by tasks outside of the application process that NI 157 specifically measures. For example, pre-application enquiries, Section 106 negotiation, Condition monitoring, enforcement activity, defending appeals, and other general enquiries. As a result, performance has been compressed while system capacity is fully consumed. Currently, the Development Control (DC) Team operates with 4.3 FTE (1 Team Leader, 2.3 DC Planners, 1 Enforcement Officer). To make best use of these scare resources the more straight forward applications (householder applications e.g. extensions) are partially dealt with by consultants (St Helen’s Council) on a per application basis with HBC retaining control over the granting of consent. This allows the Council’s permanent staff to deal with the more complex and contentious applications where local experience and an in-depth understanding of Council policy and practice is vital to the delivery of sound, transparent and justified planning decisions in the best interests of our Borough. This service area has a carefully balanced budget and operates from a net zero budget position where costs are fully covered from application fees. The challenge that arises with the use of temporary staff and consultants is balancing expeditious decision making against operating what is essentially an expedient and zero cost service that does not impact negatively on the Council’s overall budgetary position. 

 

Question 3

 

          The number of third party compensation claims due to alleged highway/footway defects have increased. A few years ago, the Council decided that it would have a regular inspection system followed by action to repair defects to demonstrate in Court that all reasonable efforts were being made to check highways, footways and repair defects. Has the Council reduced this activity due to spending constraints or are many of the claims simply spurious?

 

Response

 

Our inspection regime under S58 of the highways Act has not changed. Indeed we are looking to increase what we inspect in light of the Gullikson ruling which made the Council as Highway Authority responsible for footpaths/footways that were once deemed to be the responsibility of housing associations or trusts. Our current regime is:

 

Town Centres – Inspected monthly

All other Roads and Footpaths – Inspected quarterly

Expressways and Busways that have no pedestrian access – Inspected from vehicle quarterly

Gullikson footpaths and some cycleways – Inspected 6 monthly.

 

I will have the number of claims checked but whilst they appear to be higher than anticipated, we continue to have a very good record in defending such claims due to the above regime. Based on the figure of 72 we are suggesting that the annual target will not be met but this may not be the case. We obviously have no control over the number of claims made and an increase could be due to a number of factors including our additional responsibilities for footpaths and insurance companies encouraging people to submit claims. The number of claims can and does fluctuate over time. We will have a better idea at year end.

 

          It was agreed that a copy of the above questions and responses be circulated to members of the Board.

 

          An update on the progress of the draft Runcorn Town Centre action plan was requested by a member of the Board. In response, it was noted that Savills had been appointed to progress development options within the Town Centre and take them to the market place. It was agreed that an interim update report, including the level of interest generated in the market place, be brought to the next meeting of the Board.

 

          RESOLVED: That the 2^nd Quarter Performance Management Report be received.