Contact: Roger Lawes, ext 6743 email: [email protected]

With the concurrence of the Chairman under Section 100(B)(4)(b) of the Local Government Act 1972, this matter is included on the agenda to ensure that Member consideration of Best Value Performance Indicator targets may proceed expeditiously and in the light of the most up to date information available.

1. Summary

1.1 Over the last year Members have considered a series of reports about the various Government and corporate performance measures that apply to the Environment Department. The aim of these reports has been to draw Members' attention to the potential usefulness (and limitations) of using this data to measure the performance of the Department. A report on comparative performance 2002/03 with other County Councils was due to be considered at the last meeting but was deferred.

1.2 This report deals with the comparative analysis carried over from the last meeting. In the light of a technical explanation for the relative performances shown, Members are invited to consider if policies and/or priorities should change in an attempt to improve performance in certain areas. As it is now that time of year when the data for last year's (2003/04) performance is becoming available and the targets for the next three years have to be set for inclusion in the 2004 Best Value Improvement Plan, the report also deals with those matters. Comments are made on last year's performance and future targets recommended. An explanation is also given about the current uncertainties surrounding some of the targets. Information on some of the targets is still being collected and will be circulated at the meeting.

1.3 An understanding of how services are performing is essential if Aim 5 of the Corporate Strategy (Improving Services) is to be achieved and services improved.

2. Background

2.1 At present there are 87 BVPIs covering many aspects of the County Council's performance. These indicators have changed and developed since the system was introduced. Some have undergone frequent revision; others have been replaced; and a few have been dropped completely. This continual state of change has not helped the development of the process from a simple data collection activity to a monitoring and improvement regime. Seventeen relate to the work of the Environment Department. These cover four service areas within the Department: waste, transport, road casualties and planning.

2.2 The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (ODPM) has informed all local authorities of work under way to develop a set of Best Value Indicators for 2004/05 to support the redesign of the Comprehensive Performance Assessment (CPA) for 2005/06 and suggested that significant changes could take place to the suite of indicators from 1 October 2004 to support CPA judgements from 2005 onwards. Nothing so far has been published.

2.3 The working assumption for 2004/05 is that the same data will need to be collected as in 2003/04. However, the ODPM has confirmed some interim changes some of which impact on the Environment Department for 2004 and beyond (although the previous definitions will still have to be used for reporting performance in 2003/04):

(i) amendments to BV82b/c (waste sent for composting and waste used for energy recovery);

(ii) amendments to BV96 (condition of principal roads);

(iii) change in presentation for BV99 (road casualties); and

(iv) deletion of BV107 (cost per head of the planning service).

3. Comparisons with other County Councils

3.1 Appendix 1 shows numerically and graphically the Department's 2002/03 performance compared with the best quartile performance in other county councils. Performance in the best quartile is a very high standard: most corporate comparisons assume that performance in the mid-range (median) quartile is acceptable. The graphics in the last two columns of the table provide an `at a glance' indication of the Department's performance in 2002/03. The first column shows if performance was generally above, at or below the best quartile for performance for all county councils. The second column shows the general trend in performance: the first arrow denotes if the targets of the best performing authorities had improved, worsened or stayed about the same between 2001/02 and 2002/03; the second arrow shows the comparative achievements of the Environment Department.

3.2 On a positive note there are some indicators, for example BV82a (percentage of household waste recycled); BV97(b) (condition of unclassified roads) and BV109 (percentage of applications determined within 13 weeks), where the Department's performance is well above the best quartile. In many others performance is on a par with other well performing authorities.

3.3 The table also shows that BV84 (kilograms of household waste collected per head) is higher than in the best performing authorities, although the actual figure was an improvement on the target for the year set in 2001/02. The reasons for this high domestic waste volume are being explored.

3.4 The network condition indicators (BV96 and BV97) are relatively new. Not only is more time series data needed before any trends can be accurately determined, and in particular how changes in funding levels affect those trends, but a period of stability in the indicator is also needed so that year on year comparisons can be made. These two indicators have been the subject of regular changes over the years and 2004/05 sees yet more changes in the required data sets and analysis. Improving BV100 (the number of days of temporary traffic controls) could, perversely, be achieved by reducing levels of road maintenance and repair.

3.5 The road casualty statistics relating to pedal cycle and powered two wheeler (sub-sets of BV99) are one reason for the continuing targeting of education and training programmes on these two activities. The wider transportation policies and speed management programmes are also aimed at reducing casualty numbers. Proposed changes to the indicator will see these particular measures related to individual road user groups no longer collected.

3.6 The gross planning cost per head of population (BV107) relates to an indicator that has long been considered by strategic planning authorities as seriously flawed. Its flaws stem not only from the incorrect assumption that a cheap planning service is a good service (an error now recognised by the award of the Planning Delivery Grant) but also from the idea that expenditure per head could provide a good means of comparing authorities. Additionally, benchmarking work undertaken with a number of authorities across the country has shown that the costs are calculated and attributed to the planning service differently, further invalidating its usefulness as a comparative indicator.

3.7 The bald comparison of individual outcomes with the best performing authorities often fails to reflect both the base-line from which improvements to performance are being measured and the time necessary for plans and strategies to take effect to secure improvements. It also pays no regard either to the width of the band within which all the comparator authorities are nested, there always has to be an authority at the top, in the middle and at the bottom, although the differences between them do not need to be significant; or the trajectory of year on year changes to the indicators in question. Accordingly, for those measures where performance is not in the best quartile, figures are shown in the table (in italic in brackets in the `actual 2002/03' column) of the mid range (median) levels of performance. Comparisons for those figures show that there are only a few indicators where performance appears worse than the mid range of all county councils. These are: the cost of waste disposal, where the Hampshire figure reflects the recent large-scale investment in integrated waste facilities; some types of road casualties (which is proposed to be discarded in the form currently reported) where small changes in absolute numbers among individual road user groups can cause wide annual fluctuations; and the planning cost per head figure.

3.8 Looking at the trend in the performance figures the final column shows that, for the most part, Hampshire's trends follow the national picture within best performing authorities. Mirroring the national trend is, of course, no reason for complacency.

4. Performance 2003/04

4.1 The detailed performance figures are given in Appendix 2. The following paragraphs summarise the figures under the four main headings.

Waste

4.2 The performance targets relating to waste were, for the most part, met or exceeded. The level of recycling was marginally higher than target, although composting was slightly down due to the introduction of collection authority green waste schemes.

4.3 The amount of waste that was processed at the Chineham Energy Recovery Facility was greater than forecast. In turn, this reduced (albeit slightly) the amount of waste that was sent to landfill.

4.4 In a national context, only one disposal authority, Dorset, recycled a greater proportion of its waste last year. With new recycling infrastructure to be introduced later this year at Alton and Little Bushy Warren, it is anticipated that the county will top the national recycling statistics in 2003/05 for disposal authorities.

4.5 This increase in the unit cost of waste disposal was higher than expected because waste volumes unexpectedly decreased in 2003/04. A significant amount of waste disposal expenditure is fixed in nature and therefore decreases in volumes have an adverse impact on the unit cost calculation. Despite this increase the costs, although high, are low in comparison with recently awarded disposal contracts elsewhere in the country.

Transport

4.6 The transport targets cover three main areas. The number of passengers using public transport is dependent primarily on market conditions in the bus industry. The County Council can influence the result through action it takes to improve services, infrastructure and marketing to supplement what the operators provide. The Council has been active in promoting improvements to the bus network in partnership with operators but much of this work has only produced improvements on the ground during the past year. The positive results of this activity should become more apparent in 2004/05.

4.7 Information on road casualties and road condition is still being collated and will be reported at committee

Planning

4.8 The target percentage of planning applications dealt with within the prescribed 13 week period was not achieved. A combination of factors led to this situation including the introduction of a new computer-based planning applications system (an essential requirement if the e-government targets are to be met) and the increasing community involvement in planning applications. Notwithstanding the apparent dip in performance, the 2003/04 Customer Satisfaction Survey showed that 91% of applicants are satisfied with the service. The Regulatory Committee is aware of the influence that performance will have on the CPA refreshment process where these indicators will contribute 15 percent towards the total environment CPA assessment (see paragraph 6.13). The Committee will be considering recommendations on how the service can be improved at a future meeting. Although progress on the development plan was as expected, failure to have an up to date Minerals and/or Waste Local Plan meant that the County Council was not eligible for a Planning Development Grant this year (2004/05).

5 Performance Targets 2004/05 to 2006/07

5.1 Appendix 2 shows the proposed performance targets 2004/05 to 2006/07 and provides a brief commentary explaining why the targets have been selected.

The Waste Targets

5.2 The proposed targets on recycling reflect the County Council's ambition to help the country meet stretching EU targets relating to landfill. No statutory target is set for the cost of waste disposal per tonne. The Hampshire targets reflect what the actual costs are likely to be within the cost limits imposed by the waste strategy.

5.3 The weight of waste collected per person head is also linked to the implementation of the waste strategy because, again, there are no specific targets set by Government. This target will provide an incentive to minimise waste arisings. Although waste minimisation is at the top of the Government's waste hierarchy and the figures for 2003/04 suggest waste volumes per capita are falling, the targets allow for a small increase in volumes reflecting the current link between waste growth and economic performance.

The Transport Targets

5.4 The bus passenger targets assume success for the direct marketing campaign devised as part of the Local Public Service Agreement (LPSA) work which is designed to encourage people to make more use of the bus network. This work is already showing very positive early results with growth on some routes of around 6%. At the same time investment by operators in new vehicles and improved frequencies as part of Quality Bus Partnerships is also showing passenger growth of up to 20% year on year. However, whether this growth will be sufficient to outweigh the general decline in bus patronage outside urban areas is not yet clear.

5.5 Government proposes to change the way in which road casualty numbers and targets are presented. At present there is conflicting advice from the Audit Commission on the nature, if any, of the targets to be set this year. The highway and footpath targets reflect last year's figures pending the results of the 2003/04 surveys.

The Planning Targets

5.6 The cost per head of the planning service has been deleted as a Planning BVPI. Accordingly, other than the triennial Customer Satisfaction Survey only two planning indicators are relevant to county councils, BVP109 and BVP200. The target for BVP109 reflects the national target for county councils of dealing with 60 percent of all applications within 13 weeks. Given the increasing sensitivity of the types of minerals and waste planning applications that fall to be determined by the County Council achieving the national target will be a challenge. BVP200 reflects the expected programme for preparing the Minerals and Waste Local Development Framework. Failure to meet this target will have financial consequences for the County Council as the allocation of the Planning Development Grant 2005/06 will depend on the formal stage reached by local authorities in the preparation of their local development framework.

6. Comments by the Director of Environment

6.1 A number of lessons can be learnt from the comparative analysis of the BVPI statistics 2002/03 which not only have a resonance beyond the limited range of the activities covered by the BVPIs themselves but also could influence how future targets might be set.

6.2 First, a relative position in a performance band (eg an upper quartile) is not necessarily a reflection of good or bad performance. It is an unconditional comparative position which fails to reflect if performance is improving or declining, or properly reflecting local priorities or problems.

6.3 Second, achieving targets often requires simultaneous actions on a number of fronts. When setting targets for future years these actions need to be considered as seriously as the targets themselves, for example improving recycling is not simply a question of wishing a higher percentage but requires the delivery of a supporting infrastructure.

6.4 Third, some targets can be mutually exclusive (for example highway maintenance and days of temporary traffic control) and others can be mutually supporting (condition of the highway network and road traffic accidents). In the final analysis, therefore, priorities may have to be set within which the individual targets have to be nested.

6.5 Fourth, some targets (for example road casualty numbers among individual road user groups and planning decisions) relate to relatively small numbers. Accordingly, outcomes can appear to be subject to very wide fluctuations simply because of numerically very small changes.

6.6 Fifth, some targets cannot be achieved quickly. The plans and programmes established to address issues (such as the condition of the highway network) may need to run for a significant period before sustained improvements can be measured.

6.7 There are indications that these lessons are also being learnt within the ODPM and other Government departments, with a growing realisation that BVPI targets can often work in a perverse way to undermine service improvements. Energy is often directed towards achieving the targets through changing procedures rather than at a root and branch review of the continued relevance of the programmes and processes that the indicator is meant to be measuring.

6.8 It was the need for a greater understanding and awareness of the background and purpose of individual BVPIs that led the sub group, established by this Policy Review Committee to look at the target setting process, to conclude that it was not a simple task that could be addressed in a single, once a year discussion at Committee. It required a detailed understanding of the issues on a topic by topic basis, perhaps as the result of the Committee's consideration of specific issues (for example the public transport strategy) or related activities (for example the LPSA).

6.9 Influencing performance in future years is therefore as much about how priorities are set and resources are allocated as simply process improvements. Moreover, future performance may well depend on the continuation of plans and strategies put in place to improve performance in areas perceived to be under performing in previous years.

6.10 The similarity between BVPIs and some of the LPSA targets and the key actions arising from the Corporate Strategy and Cabinet priorities has resulted in significant extra resources being directed at activities that will help to improve performance against certain of the BVPI targets. The Natural Resources Initiative (LPSA Target 9) should have an effect on the waste BVPIs; the `Personalised Marketing' on the 10 routes identified in the Quality Bus Partnership study should help increase bus patronage (LPSA Target 10). Additional investment and resources during the latter part of 2003/04 and into 2004/05 in safety engineering remedial programmes, camera deployment and focused road maintenance and improvements should contribute towards a reduction in road casualties (LPSA Target 12).

6.11 In response to public demand a significant part of the additional £3.5 million for highway maintenance has, so far, been targeted at footways. As the standard of footways improves the proportion spent on carriageway maintenance may increase. If additional funding is continued in future years it will have beneficial long-term impacts not only on the related BVPI but also on the casualty BVPI (through additional highway dressing schemes to improve skid resistance).

6.12 For this year it is proposed that the targets reflect a continuation of the improvements achieved in recent years and expected as a result of the initiatives referred to above. Over the next year work in reviewing the Local Transport Plan, the preparation of the Minerals and Waste Local Development Framework and the evolution of the Material Resources Strategy will result in plans and actions that will influence selected BVPIs. When these documents are considered by this Committee, Members will be alerted to these consequences. Also over the next year the various district-wide Community Strategies and the Hampshire Community Strategy will gain maturity and begin to influence the plans and programmes of partners. These actions may also have an impact on performance in particular areas covered by the BVPIs.

6.13 Finally, the next CPA refreshment process will rely heavily on BVPI outcomes. With no recent formal Best Value inspections to count in the assessment, the emphasis will switch to performance as measured by the statutory BVPIs (the relevant BVPIs are shown with an asterisk in Appendix 1) and the Local Transport Plan. With the pressures of community expectation the Department may need to do more than simply continue with present practices. Remaining at the top of the performance pole may require more and more effort. At a time of increasing pressures on scarce resources (time, money and staff) it is probable that Members will increasingly be faced with the need to chose between tasks competing for the same resource. Accordingly, clarity of purpose and a clear set of priorities will remain essential rather than desirable attributes as the scrutiny role develops for this and other Policy Review Committees.

Recommendations

1. That the comparative Best Value Performance Indicator performance figures set out in Appendix 1, and the explanation for those performances below the best quartile, be noted.

2. That the Committee reflects on the lessons drawn from the analysis of performance, in particular the need to:

(i) establish priorities and maintain investment in those plans and strategies necessary to improve performance in those areas; and

(ii) recognise the importance of plans and strategies when weighing up the balance of advantage and disadvantage of particular proposals.

3. The Committee notes the performance achieved during 2003/04 as measured by the national BVPIs and endorses the proposed targets for the next three years as set out in Appendix 2.

8527a/RL

APPENDIX 1

Best Value Performance Indicators: Comparative Performance 2002/03

☺Above upper quartile for performance ☹Below upper quartile for performance _ At (or about) upper quartile for performance

? The audited results vary widely because of variations in estimated costs of structural expenditure/kilometre.

(i) As guidance has not been provided for this indicator, authorities will not be penalised if they do not provide data to the ODPM. For completeness, and their own monitoring purposes, authorities can report the information but there will be no assessment by auditors of whether or not the data has been collected in accordance with the definition.

APPENDIX 2

Best Value Performance Indicators: Actual Performance 2003/2004 and future targets

 # information still being collated

* latest and unaudited estimate