Issue - meetings

Report from the Interim Director of Policy, Strategy and Engagement.

Recommendations:

That Cabinet:

1. Agree the new Year Ahead Delivery Plan for 2026-27.

2. Note that future progress reports will be presented to Cabinet in January and July 2027.

Consideration was given to the report which presented the 2026/27 Year Ahead Delivery Plan for approval. The 2026/27 Year Ahead Delivery Plan was the second delivery plan that had been produced to deliver the Council Plan 2025-2030. It set out the key activities to be delivered over the upcoming financial  ...  view the full minutes text for item 151

Report from the Interim Director of Policy, Strategy and Engagement.

Recommendations:

That Cabinet:

1. Agree the new Year Ahead Delivery Plan for 2026-27.

2. Note that future progress reports will be presented to Cabinet in January and July 2027.

At the Chair’s invitation the Leader of the Council introduced the annual delivery plan, explaining that it set out actions for the year within the context of the wider Council Plan and longer?term objectives. It was noted that the plan had been brought forward ahead of end?of?year performance figures, which would be reported later in the municipal year.

The plan included 81 priority actions aligned with existing decision?making frameworks, 35 corporate performance measures, and a small number of annual social care measures to ensure service?level performance remained visible within corporate reporting. Members were advised that the overall structure and thematic approach were consistent with the previous year.

A correction was highlighted relating to a performance measure on enforcement activity, clarifying that it applied specifically to the Street Safe Team. It was explained that the measure was intended to provide an indication of overall activity for the newly established service, recognising that its role extended beyond enforcement to include softer support and creating welcoming environments. The measure would be reviewed over the year to assess its suitability.

The Chair invited members of the Overview and Scrutiny Management Board (OSMB) to raise questions and queries.

Councillor Allen raised concerns about the wording of Social Care Measure SC5, which referred to safeguarding outcomes being “at least partially met.” It was queried whether this reflected a lack of ambition to fully meet personal outcomes, whether it implied acceptance of falling short of full potential, and whether such wording could risk encouraging complacency among staff in meeting individuals’ needs.

The Leader responded that the social care measure referenced was a nationally recognised performance measure rather than one developed locally. It was emphasised that the measure was not intended to suggest that partially meeting outcomes was acceptable, nor to lower expectations for practice. Instead, it was designed to focus on the lived experiences and perceptions of adults involved in safeguarding processes, rather than solely on activity?based or output measures, ensuring service user experience remained central to performance reporting.

The Executive Director, Adult Care, Housing and Public Health, Ian Spicer, explained that, in safeguarding cases, it was not always possible to fully resolve every outcome a person might wish to achieve, due to the complexity and limits of intervention. It was emphasised that the measure focused on ensuring individuals had as positive an experience as possible during safeguarding processes, recognising that the circumstances prompting those interventions were often challenging. While the wording might appear unambitious when read in isolation, it reflected a nationally set measure and acknowledged that not all desired outcomes could realistically be delivered in every case.

In a further question, Councillor Allen queried why actions relating to reference P31, ‘Increase the proportion of waste sent for reuse’ and reference 16 ‘Plant at least 500 trees across the borough’, were allocated to the Cabinet Member for Finance and Community Safety, and sought clarification on whether this was intentional. The Leader suggested that the allocation may have been an administrative  ...  view the full minutes text for item 131