Finance
& Performance Improvement Report – Quarter 1 2012/13
Table of Contents
Understanding the
Quarter 1 Performance Report. 2
Regeneration &
Environment Performance Profile. 2
Symbols are used within this report to
give a visual representation of performance.
These symbols, and what they represent, are detailed below.
Status
Status
gives and overall rating for the objective taking into account the progress
against activity, performance indicators and mitigating risks
|
|
|
Corporate
Objective on track with minimal, if any, concern about delivery |
Corporate
Objective mostly on track but some concerns that if not addressed could
affect delivery |
Corporate
Objective currently off track with significant concerns about delivery |
Milestones
This
shows what progress has been made against the delivery dates for milestones
linked to the objective and is demonstrated with the following symbols
|
|
|
Progressing
and on track |
Check
progress on milestone dates |
Milestone
dates have been missed |
Performance
Indicators
Performance
indicators (PI) have been structured on Covalent with red, amber and green
thresholds being personalised for each PI
Performance |
Finance |
|
|
OK – Performance on target – denotes
current value is between the amber/green threshold and the best value If
the data value is equal to the amber threshold, and the amber threshold is
equal to the target, the PI status will be green |
Under-spent
or on budget |
|
Warning – Performance below target – denotes
current value is between the amber/red threshold and the amber/green
threshold If
the data value is equal to the amber threshold, and the amber threshold is
not equal to the target, the PI status will be amber |
Overspend
is less than £250k |
|
Alert – Performance significantly below
target – denotes current value is between the amber/red threshold and the
worst value If
the data value is equal to the red threshold, the PI status will be red. |
Overspend
exceeds £250k |
Risk Profiles
Risks are profiled in line with the
Corporate Risk Management Framework and the risk profile score determines the
overall status.
|
|
|
Low
level risks with a profile score between 1 and 4 |
Medium
level risks with a profile score between 5 and 19 |
High
level risks with a profile score between 20 and 25 |
Direction
of Travel
The
direction of travel looks at whether things have improved stayed the same or
become worse when we compare performance with data reported in the previous
quarter
↑ |
↔ |
↓ |
Getting
better |
Exactly
the same as previously |
Getting
worse |
Objective
Status |
PI
Profile |
Risk
Profile |
|
|
|
Direction of travel |
Status |
Corporate
Plan Objective |
Milestones |
Measures |
Data Only |
Risks |
||||
* |
|
Creating the conditions for
Economic Engagement |
|
|
|
|
2 |
|
1 |
|
* |
|
Promoting Economic
Engagement |
|
|
|
|
|
5 |
1 |
|
* |
|
Supporting strong
partnerships |
|
|
|
|
|
2 |
3 |
|
* |
|
Increasing inward
investment |
|
1 |
|
1 |
|
1 |
3 |
|
* |
|
Promotion of our key
cultural assets |
|
|
1 |
|
|
1 |
|
|
* |
|
Engage with the private
sector to ensure business influences improvements to the economy |
|
|
|
|
|
1 |
1 |
|
* |
|
Seek to rebalance the
priority given to public transport over other modes by making greater use of
road space currently being used solely for buses |
|
|
|
|
|
2 |
|
|
* |
|
Achieve Better Quality
Homes by improving housing standards in Doncaster |
… |
1 |
|
1 |
|
|
2 |
|
* |
|
Achieve Better Places to
live by increasing supply & affordability of housing & promoting
housing investment in Doncaster |
|
4 |
|
|
|
1 |
2 |
|
* |
|
Achieve Better Housing
Choices for People by taking into account the housing implications in the
Localism Act and by contributing to corporate work to improve universal
services/life chances |
|
1 |
|
|
|
2 |
|
|
* |
|
Deliver a
stakeholder-engaged VFM service by supporting the SCR Housing &
Regeneration Board & responding to any legacy recommendations arising
from the ceasing of the Housing Improving Board |
… |
2 |
|
|
|
|
2 |
|
* |
|
Effectively enforce against
environmental offences (including noise nuisance, littering & fly
tipping) |
|
1 |
1 |
1 |
|
|
1 |
|
* |
|
Effectively progress the
Barnsley, Doncaster and Rotherham (BDR) waste PFI project |
|
|
|
|
|
|
3 |
|
* |
|
Implementation of the Local
Development Framework |
|
|
|
|
|
|
3 |
1 |
* |
|
Implement Doncaster's
Environment Strategy |
|
|
|
|
|
|
2 |
|
* |
… |
Housing Improvement Plan |
… |
… |
… |
… |
… |
… |
… |
… |
Governance Indicators
Days
lost due to sickness |
Implementation
of Critical and Major Audit Actions |
Performance
Develop Reviews |
|
2 out of 7 achieved |
|
Financial Profile – Revenue
|
|
Gross Budget 000’s |
Net Budget 000’s |
Variance 000’s |
|
Regeneration & Environment Total |
78,092 |
45,267 |
316 |
The revenue budgets in Regeneration & Environment are
projected to overspend by £316k; this is after £689k of recurrent underspends
in specific areas being transferred to CYPS.
The main overspends are Environment £133k and Strategic Housing £131k
with underspends on Development £121k and Trading & Support Services
£133k. The trading accounts are
projected to underachieve their budgeted surpluses by £262k due to overspends
on Metroclean £437k, with an underspend on Markets £164k |
Service
Budgets with a Red profile
|
Trading |
0 |
-1,372 |
262 |
The main underspend is on Markets £164k with the main overspend
arising in Metroclean £437k due to issues meeting on-going budget savings |
Financial Profile – Capital
|
|
Revised Base
Budget |
Quarter 1
Forecast |
Actuals to
date |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Regeneration & Environment Total |
129,994 |
127,008 |
11,786 |
No significant issues for this area at quarter 1, with
individual comments detailed below. |
||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
Development |
67,806 |
63,052 |
7,254 |
CCQ works and Civic Office fit out works are progressing largely
in line with the estimated programme.
FARRRS - The contractor has been selected and works and financing
package is being finalised.
Negotiations continued to complete the Developer's contributions to
allow RGF due diligence to be completed.
WRW - Scheme ahead of schedule, making good progress on both Phase 1
and Phase 2. Main areas of spend
include CCQ Works £22.0m, FARRRS £24.2m and White Rose Way £12.8m. The reduction in estimate largely relates
to the re-profiling of later phases of the CCQ programme from 2012/13 and
Bentley Park works being re-profiled to 2013/14. Waterfront - LSTF Grant Funding has been
approved for 2012/13 and 2013/14. |
||||
|
Transport |
7,204 |
6,768 |
681 |
No significant issues for this area of the programme at Quarter
1. Main spend includes Integrated
Transport Block £2.4m, Highways £2.9m and Bridges £1.5m. Reduction in forecast spend from base
budget is mainly due to the re-profiling of bridge improvement works to later
years and fluctuations between actual and indicative grant allocations. |
||||
|
Other Environment Schemes |
3,891 |
3,857 |
32 |
No significant issues for this area of the programme at Quarter
1. Main spend includes Interim and
Long Term Waste Processing £1.2m and Play Areas/Open Space £1.1m. |
||||
|
Total Environment |
11,095 |
10,625 |
713 |
No significant issues for the area at Quarter 1. |
||||
|
Housing General Fund |
6,202 |
8,419 |
148 |
No significant issues for this area of the programme at Quarter
1 other than the delivery of the £1.4m Gypsy and Traveller new pitches scheme
is dependent upon agreeing the contract with the HCA and the related
grant. Main areas of expected spend
are Empty Property Strategy £3.2m, Achieving Access and Inclusion £2.1m, Windhill
Efficiency works £1.2m and Six Streets £1.1m.
The increase in spend is mainly due to the new additions detailed in
Appendix H. |
||||
|
Housing Revenue Account |
42,509 |
41,966 |
3,523 |
No significant issues for this area of the programme at Quarter
1. Potential issue with the Decent
Homes Programme if decline rate increases and new agreements with contractors
are not secured before year end the works could be delayed, with funding
rolled forward into 2013/14. Position
being monitored, will be updated in Q2.
Main areas of spend include Decency Works £27.9m, Planned Improvements
£8.8m and Affordable Housing £2.1m. |
||||
|
Total Strategic Housing |
48,711 |
50,385 |
3,671 |
No significant issues at in this area at quarter 1, with
comments detailed above. |
||||
|
Trading & Support Services |
2,156 |
2,386 |
146 |
No significant issues for this area of the programme at Quarter
1. Main area of spend is Mercury
Abatement works £1.0m. |
||||
|
Revenue Costs of Capital |
226 |
560 |
0 |
No significant issues for this area of the programme at Quarter
1. Main areas of spend are CCQ decant
and aerial relocation £0.3m and Transport related costs £0.3m. |
Director’s Comment Progress against our Corporate Plan
objectives has continued the positive trend of the previous year. The Regeneration and Environment
Directorate has 15 priorities spread across 4 themes and all of these
priorities are on track. This
represents very positive performance for the Directorate. I am particularly pleased with the
amount of ‘External Investment’ secured for housing priorities, with £26.4m
already secured against the 2011-2014 target of £30m. However, I recognise that we have to
improve on the performance of 4 indicators that are red in Q1: 1.
The new jobs figure for Q1 for Success
Doncaster is below target but new contracts
commencing in Q2 and major job creation projects are in the pipeline so it is
hope this jobs figure will be recovered by the end of Q2; 2.
The Overall Investment Target for Q1 is
below target but with investments in the pipeline there is confidence that
the situation will improve significantly in Q2; 3.
Category 1 Hazards resolved in 6 months
is below target but a Systems Thinking review and work with the Directorate
Business Development Manager is planned to help improve working
practices. This, along with an
increase in resources across the team, will speed up the resolution of Cat1s.
4.
We are below target on enforcement
actions for fly-tipping, which is set high, compared to the national
picture. Work is on-going within the
new Enforcement Team to improve performance and the target will be reviewed
with the aim of setting a more realistic target, whilst improving on last
year’s performance. We have one Risk that is rated red,
which relates to the legal challenge to the Joint Waste Plan. The challenge period is over and no legal
challenge has been made in Doncaster but, although it may be unlikely,
challenges can be made to courts outside of Doncaster, so there is a period
of waiting before we can say if this risk has passed. Reducing sickness absence remains a high
priority for the directorate and, in line with corporate guidance, we
continue to focus on areas of concern including data quality; compliance with
the Council's policy; and are working with HR to improve effective monitoring
and management of staff in those areas with the highest absence rates. Although not targeted measures in the
corporate Plan, I am mindful of two other areas that we need to continue monitoring: ·
Doncaster’s claimant numbers more or
less stood still in June 2012, whilst nationally & regionally there was
around a 2% reduction; and ·
Empty homes, at 4,989, is at its
highest Quarterly figure since Q2 2009/10. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Regeneration
& Environment have 3 strategic risks linked to the Corporate Plan for
2012/13. They have all been profiled
for Q1, no strategic risks have been identified for demotion and no new risks
have been nominated during the challenge process. The Q1 risk profiles that have a risk
score of 10 or above are shown below. |
|||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Impact of a delayed adoption of the Local Development Framework
(LDF) timeframe |
|
Scott Cardwell |
|||||
|
Core Strategy due to go to
Full Council on 18th May for adoption, which is obviously a huge step
forward, however the risk remains as the work on the detailed policies and
site allocations will form part of a subsequent document. |
||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Failure to respond adequately to borough emergencies or mitigate
effectively against the effects of extreme weather conditions e.g. flooding |
|
Karen Hanson |
|||||
|
Emergency Planning are
working with Directorates and Managers to review practices and procedures
which reflect the changing corporate structures, in order to ensure the best
use of emergency response skills and resources. An on-going training and exercise plan is
used to increase staff awareness of emergency planning risks and their
response roles and responsibilities. |
||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|