Agenda item

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 error and that the portfolio attribution would be checked and corrected if necessary.

Councillor Yasseen made two general observations. The first related to ongoing challenges with engagement, particularly the under?representation of young people and ethnic minority communities in consultations. Concern was expressed about a perceived disconnect between strategic plans and neighbourhood working, with a view that such plans should be more clearly translated to ward?level relevance and discussed within neighbourhood structures to support effective implementation.

The second observation related to the quality of equality analysis. It was noted that while the Council was aware of deprivation, health inequalities and demographic differences across wards, equality impact assessments often suggested there were no barriers. The member questioned how this aligned with known inequalities and whether the analysis sufficiently acknowledged structural and practical barriers, citing examples such as unmet needs impacting adult social care demand and budgets.

In response, the Leader explained that the delivery plan represented a borough?wide set of corporate priorities intended to complement, rather than replace, neighbourhood working. It was acknowledged that stronger links between neighbourhood engagement and corporate planning were needed, and that work was underway to better align neighbourhood services, policy development, communications and governance to achieve a more holistic approach to engagement and decision?making.

On equality analysis, it was acknowledged that barriers did exist within society and that the equality section of the report provided a high?level assessment of the overall impact of the plan. It was emphasised that individual actions and projects would be supported by more detailed equality work as they were delivered. The challenges of engaging under?represented groups, particularly younger people, were recognised as ongoing and requiring targeted effort. It was confirmed that addressing inequality remained a priority, although it was accepted that progress was complex and incremental.

Adding to the response the Director of Policy, Strategy and Engagement, Chris Paddock stated that equality remained a recognised and ongoing challenge, closely linked to neighbourhood engagement. Members were advised that a forthcoming Thriving Neighbourhoods Strategy would seek to better translate Council Plan objectives at neighbourhood level, taking account of geography as well as factors such as diversity, age and different community groups.

Reference was made to the ward prioritisation process, which used data analysis aligned to Council Plan themes to identify specific geographic and community?level issues, and to the development of a Neighbourhood Leadership Strategy aimed at strengthening the role of ward councillors in these processes. It was noted that these approaches were intended to improve inclusion, equitable involvement and councillor input where issues were identified.

The Head of Policy, Performance and Intelligence, Fiona Boden, clarified the reference within the equality analysis, noting that earlier sections of the document set out significant detail on existing barriers faced by residents, particularly those who were most vulnerable. It was highlighted that the plan brought together existing actions and mitigations already underway across services, rather than proposing new initiatives.

It was acknowledged that wording within the equality analysis could have been clearer and better aligned with the broader narrative, which recognised the presence of structural and practical barriers. The member emphasised that these barriers were addressed through existing activity and that more detailed, individual equality assessments would be undertaken at the relevant decision?making stages for specific actions contained within the plan.

A further question was asked by Councillor Yasseen who emphasised the need for clearer linkage between the delivery plan and neighbourhood?level activity. Concern was expressed that wards were contributing to the plan’s outcomes without having structured discussions about implementation or oversight at neighbourhood meetings. By way of example, reference was made to youth provision, including the Healthy Holidays programme, where opportunities existed to better align planned provision with identified local issues. It was suggested that stronger cohesion was needed to ensure neighbourhoods were aware of initiatives coming forward, could monitor progress, and support effective local delivery.

Councillor Monk sought clarification on the presentation of social care performance measures, noting that some indicators were marked as non?applicable. While this was understood in relation to measures such as children at risk of exploitation, questions were raised about adult measures. In particular, clarification was requested as to why the proportion of adults with social care support remaining at home was listed as non?applicable, while a low number of new admissions to residential care was treated as a positive outcome, given that residential care may be the appropriate and necessary response to meet individuals’ needs.

Following upon the original question, Councillor Monk sought clarification on adult social care performance measures, particularly the distinction between measures relating to adults remaining at home and those relating to admissions to residential care. Concern was expressed about how these measures were assessed where residential care was the appropriate outcome to meet individuals’ needs.

The Executive Director, Adult Care, Housing and Public Health, Ian Spicer, explained that the measure relating to adults remaining at home, reference SC1, referred to the length of time an individual continued to live at home following a social care intervention, and was intended to demonstrate the effectiveness of support in preventing readmission to hospital or residential care. It was noted that this measure was difficult to report on consistently, as the duration could only be confirmed once a subsequent episode occurred, which explained why figures were sometimes recorded as non?applicable.

Further clarification was provided that the measure was based on the period an individual remained at home post?intervention, which could vary significantly and, in some cases, be indefinite, making real?time measurement challenging.

Councillor McKiernan sought clarification on a recruitment?related action within the plan, specifically the reference to a “flexible” recruitment approach to reflect communities and support delivery of the inclusion strategy. Clarification was requested as to whether this referred to any specific intended changes or current review of HR recruitment processes, or whether the wording was intended to be more general.

The Leader explained that HR was undertaking a significant review of recruitment processes following concerns that the existing online?only system was outdated, lengthy, and creating barriers for potential applicants, with evidence of incomplete applications and under?representation from some communities.  Initial work had focussed on improving the accessibility and functionality of the system, alongside wider activity aimed at improving engagement within communities and promoting the Council as an attractive employer. It was noted that this was an evolving area of work and that the action within the plan was intended to set a point at which progress could be assessed, rather than to prescribe a fixed or finalised solution.

Following up on the question Councillor McKiernan welcomed the update on recruitment work, referring to a recent scrutiny visit where recruitment difficulties had been identified, including trials of accepting physical CVs rather than requiring online applications. Particular concern was raised about requirements such as providing three years of employment references, which could present barriers for young people and first?time job applicants. It was suggested that similar challenges could also affect progress towards apprenticeship targets. In response, it was acknowledged that the point about reference requirements had been noted and would be taken away for consideration. It was also reported that progress on apprenticeships was generally positive and would be reflected in future performance reporting.

Councillor Thorp raised concerns about the consistency of enforcement?related performance indicators within the plan, particularly where some measures set numerical targets and others set percentage thresholds. It was suggested that this approach could inadvertently encourage inconsistent enforcement practices over the year, with officers potentially delaying action to meet percentage targets later. It was also questioned whether clearer thresholds for when enforcement action should be taken would be more appropriate, and argued that certain issues, such as fly?tipping, should be subject to a consistent and robust enforcement approach wherever possible.

In response to concerns about the consistency of enforcement?related performance indicators, it was explained that the measures reflected different aspects of enforcement activity and should be viewed collectively rather than sequentially. It was clarified that some measures such as reference P4, ‘Deliver at least 50 enforcement interventions, including formal warnings, FPNs and notices’, related specifically to the Street Safe service and that wording errors would be corrected where necessary.

It was emphasised that the intention of the measures was to demonstrate both a commitment to enforcement and the effectiveness of that enforcement. Members were advised that simply issuing high numbers of penalties did not necessarily lead to better outcomes, particularly where fines were unlikely to be paid or enforcement action failed to address underlying behaviours.

It was noted that, while certain issues such as fly?tipping often warranted direct enforcement action, other matters, including hate crime?related behaviour, could require a more nuanced approach focused on engagement and behaviour change. The suite of measures was therefore intended to balance visible enforcement activity with proportionality and effectiveness, rather than incentivising enforcement solely to meet numerical targets.

Councillor Blackham raised two points. Firstly, concern was expressed about the effectiveness of several business support performance indicators, noting that the measures, E3-E6, appeared process?focused rather than outcome?focused. It was suggested that targets such as the number of businesses contacted or supported could be met without necessarily delivering meaningful economic impact, and that greater emphasis should be placed on tangible outcomes such as investment, growth or long?term benefit rather than activity alone.

Secondly, concern was raised about the progress of the Dinnington project, which had been in development for several years. It was noted that the plan indicated a contractor would not be appointed until later in the year, giving the impression that the project was not being prioritised. While acknowledging previous land acquisition issues, Councillor Blackham emphasised the importance of maintaining momentum and visibility, given the significance of the project to surrounding communities.

A follow?up question was raised by the Chair seeking assurance that sufficient capital, capacity and commitment existed across Council services, contractors and partners to deliver all actions within the proposed timescales.

The Executive Director, Regeneration and Environment, Andrew Bramidge responded that the business support indicators were intended to be meaningful and outcome?focused. It was clarified that key account management involved sustained, structured engagement with businesses over the course of the year rather than one?off contact, and that the impact of this support would be demonstrable by year end.

In relation to the Dinnington project, it was confirmed that contractor procurement would take place within the year, with demolition works commencing and the main contract works to follow. Confidence was expressed that progress would be made during the year.

Addressing the wider question of capacity and funding, it was confirmed that all actions contained within the annual delivery plan were fully funded and deliverable within the agreed timescales. While some longer?term projects would require additional funding in future years, sufficient resources were available to deliver the actions scheduled for the current year.

Following up on the earlier question, Councillor Blackham, clarified that earlier comments on business support performance measures were intended to emphasise the importance of outcomes rather than activity alone. It was reiterated that the expectation was for future reporting to demonstrate tangible achievements and added value, rather than simply confirming that numerical targets had been met.

The Chair asked the Leader whether the high?risk actions within the plan had been identified, what specific mitigations were in place to address potential delays or failures, and sought assurance that appropriate oversight and controls were in place to manage delivery risks at a leadership level. In response to questions about delivery risk, it was explained that a detailed risk ranking of actions was not held at that moment, though officers could undertake further analysis if required. It was noted that timescales had been set with appropriate contingency where possible and that actions included within the plan were based on available funding and capacity at the time of drafting.

Members were advised that progress against the plan was monitored internally through regular service reporting, with quarterly performance reports provided to Cabinet to identify areas on track and areas requiring intervention. Updates were also reported to members on a six?monthly basis. It was stated that these arrangements provided appropriate opportunities for leadership oversight and corrective action where delivery challenges arose. It was further noted that, based on previous experience, the majority of planned actions were typically delivered each year, while maintaining a sufficiently stretching programme to drive improvement and avoid complacency.

Resolved: That the Overview and Scrutiny Management Board supported the recommendations to Cabinet.