PART 1
(OPEN TO THE PUBLIC)
ITEM NO
REPORT OF THE DIRECTORS OF HOUSING SERVICES, DEVELOPMENT
SERVICES AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL SCRUTINY COMMITTEE
ON 17TH SEPTEMBER, 2001
TITLE:
QUARTER (2001 /
BEST VALUE PERFORMANCE INDICATORS – FIRST
02 PERFORMANCE
RECOMMENDATIONS:
scrutinising services
THAT the committee review the indicators in the context of
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: This report contains details of the first quarter (2001/02)
performance for those key development, housing and environmental services-based
indicators contained within the 2001/02 Best Value Performance Plan, together with any
additional indicators which are reported by exception (where performance is causing concern
and is not on target)
BACKGROUND DOCUMENTS
(Available for public inspection
Best Value Performance Plan 2001/02
CONTACT OFFICER:
Paul Mallinder – 793 3606 (Development based indicators)
Gary Rearden – 925 1221 (Housing based indicators)
Denis Gibson – 793 2075 (Environmental based indicators)
WARD(S) TO WHICH REPORT RELATE(S)
KEY COUNCIL POLICIES: Performance Management and Best Value
1.0
Details
1.1
The work programme for the Scrutiny Committee and the Council’s overall
performance management cycle requires Directorates to report 4 times per
annum on performance against those key indicators contained within the
2001/02 Best Value Performance Plan together with any additional indicators
to be reported by exception (where performance is causing concern and is not
on target).
1.2
The individual indicators are presented in graph format. For each indicator,
the following details are provided:

Performance for previous years (as far back as is available);

The average performance for all metropolitan authorities (36) and
family authorities (21) (where this is available)

Salford’s target for 2001/02 and 2004/05
1.3
Where indicators within this report are relatively new best value indicators,
then published comparative information in terms of top quartile information is
limited. Where top quartile information has been included within the report,
these were set by the Government in 2000/01 to assist authorities in setting
their five year targets accordingly.
1.4
Again, as several of the indicators within this report are new as from 2000/01,
no comparative information relating to averages for metropolitan and family
authorities has yet been published by the Audit Commission.
1.5
The City Council’s family authorities are determined by the Audit
Commission and are currently:









Gateshead
South Tyneside
Sandwell
Wolverhampton
Newcastle-upon-Tyne
Sunderland
North Tyneside
Sheffield
Oldham
Kingston-upon-Hull










Coventry
Rochdale
Hartlepool
Middlesbrough
Tameside
Bolton
Stockton-on –Tees
Wirral
St. Helens
Redcar and Cleveland
1.6
In the top right hand corner of each group is an indication of whether
performance is good, average, or poor and, in the bottom right hand corner, is
a comment as to whether a higher or lower figure is preferable for the
indicator.
1.7
Comments on performance are included in the bottom left hand corner of each
graph.
1.8
As a result of the revised corporate performance management system,
information is also now provided for each indicator regarding the action being
taken / to be taken in order to achieve the top quartile level together with any
barriers which may prevent the authority achieving that level.
1.9
Appendix A attached relates to the Development based indicators, Appendix B
the Housing Services based indicators and Appendix C the Environmental
Services based indicators.
Appendix A
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
BVPI 105 The percentage of repairs to dangerous damage to roads
w hich w ere carried out w ithin 24 hours
99
100
98
96
Performance is Good
99
98
99
Top Quartile
Met
Authorities
1999/00
Salfords 1
Year Target
2001/02
Salfords 5
Year Target
96
92
90
79
80
Percentage
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Salford
1998/99
Salford
1999/00
Salford
2000/01
Average Mets
1999/00
Average
Families
1999/00
Salfords
Current
Position
2001/02
Ranking against all Greater Manchester Councils - 4th out of 10
Ranking against family authorities
- 10th out of 20
Range for all Metropolitan Councils
- 19% to 100%
Quartile level for Salford
- Mets - 2nd
- All authorities - 2nd
Performance Indicator Action Plan
Comments on Current Performance:
The top 25% achieve 99%. Salford is currently in the 2nd quartile, with a slight improvement on last year's
percentage.
Barriers to Improvement:
The system in place between the highway maintenance client and the highway contractor.
Current/Proposed Action:
Review processes and the Best Value Review.
Top Quartile to be Achieved By (Date):
Lead Officer:
2003
Ian Crook
BVPI 99
The number of road accident casualties per100,000 - killed/seriously injured
Performance
No
comparative
is good
data
70
60
56
48
Number
50
42.94
43.82
Salford
1999/00
Salford
2000/01
46.4
40
40
30
20
10
0
Salford
1994/98
Average Mets
1999/00
Average
Families
1999/00
Ranking against all Greater Manchester Councils - n/a
Ranking against family authorities
- n/a
Range for all Metropolitan Councils
- n/a
Quartile level for Salford
- n/a
Top Quartile
Met
Authorities
1999/00
Salfords 1
Year Target
2001/02
Salfords 5
Year Target
Salfords
Current
Position
2001/02 (Jan Mar 2001)
Low er figure preferable
Performance Indicator Action Plan
Comments on Current Performance:
The January to March 2001 figure appears quite encouraging with a reduction of 12% compared with the same
period in 2000.
Barriers to Improvement:
None identified.
Current/Proposed Action:
Seek to maintain.
Top Quartile to be Achieved By (Date):
Lead Officer:
No comparative data
Steven Lee
BVPI 109 The percentage of all planning applications decided w ithin 8 w eeks
Performance is Good
100
90
77
80
69
66
70
80
80
Salfords 1
Year Target
2001/02
Salfords 5
Year Target
73
76
Percentage
60
60
52
50
40
30
20
10
0
Salford
1998/99
Salford
1999/00
Salford
2000/01
Average Mets
1999/00
Average
Families
1999/00
Ranking against all Greater Manchester Councils - 1st out of 10
Ranking against family authorities
- 6th out of 21
Range for all Metropolitan Councils
Quartile level for Salford
- Mets - 1st
- All authorities - 1st
Performance Indicator Action Plan
Comments on Current Performance:
Good performance is remaining fairly stable.
Barriers to Improvement:
None identified.
Current/Proposed Action:
Maintain high level of performance.
Top Quartile to be Achieved By (Date):
Lead Officer:
Achieved
Dave Jolley
Top Quartile
Met
Authorities
1999/00
Salfords
Current
Position
2001/02
Performance is Good
The percentage of street lights not w orking as planned
2.20
1.9
2.00
1.80
1.6
Percentage
1.60
1.40
1.14
1.20
1.00
0.89
0.81
0.79
0.78
Salford
1998/99
Salford
1999/00
Salford
2000/01
0.78
0.78
Salfords 1
Year Target
2001/02
Salfords 5
Year Target
0.80
0.60
0.40
0.20
0.00
Average Mets
1999/00
Average
Families
1999/00
Top Quartile
Met
Authorities
1999/00
Ranking against all Greater Manchester Councils - 2nd out of 10
Ranking against family authorities
- 4th out of 21
Range for all Metropolitan Councils
- 0.38 - 3.15
Quartile level for Salford
- Mets - 1st
- All authorities - 2nd
Performance Indicator Action Plan
Comments on Current Performance:
Performance has slipped slightly, but Salford is still in the top quartile for this service.
Barriers to Improvement:
None identified.
Current/Proposed Action:
Monitor performance to ensure no further slippage.
Top Quartile to be Achieved By (Date):
Lead Officer:
Achieved
Ian Crook
Salfords
Current
Position
2001/02
Appendix B
HOUSING SERVICES
The Proportion of unfit Private Sector dwellings made fit or demolished as
a direct result of action by the local authority BVPI 62
0.06
5.48%
5.15%
Percentage
0.05
0.04
0.03
0.02
0.70%
0.01
1.02%
rg
et
00
rd
Sa
/0
Ta
lfo
1
rg
rd
et
s
Cu
01
rr
/0
en
2
tP
os
iti
on
Sa
lfo
Sa
lfo
rd
Ta
19
98
/1
99
9
19
99
/0
0
20
00
/0
1
0
Performance Indicator Action Plan
Comments on Current Performance:
Approved not paid = 81
Paid
= 20
Properties acquired for demolition (approx) 34
Dwellings subject to a confirmed Demolition Order 110 (work now on site)
This may sound low for start of year with the amount of approvals coming through on target.
Barriers to Improvement:
1.
2.
3.
Internal office moves and redeployment of staff.
Delays in extending access to the Uniform computer database to all field staff.
Delays in necessary Data Comms work to provide P.C.s and network access to all field and administration
staff.
Current/Proposed Action:
1.
2.
3.
4.
All staffing issues are now resolved, office accommodation is currently being upgraded.
Necessary Data Comms work identified and orders raised with I.T Services.
Training programme for field staff in the use of the Uniform grants database agreed (Delivery linked to
completion of Data Comms work).
Establishment of Implementation Team to support work of other teams, deal with major schemes and take
initial actions in emerging priority areas e.g. Kersal and Charlestown.
Top Quartile to be Achieved By (Date):
N/A
Lead Officer:
Graham Edge
No further comment as Roger has already spoken to Harry about this.
The Actual figure for 2000/2001 was previously reported as £10.92 as this was the
best estimate at the time. This figure has now been amended to £10.44
The percentage of all current tenants owing over 13 weeks rent at 31st March, excluding those owing less than £250. (AC - D3)
Performance poor
8.00%
7.29%
7.20%
7.00%
6.55%
6.74%
6.50%
6.50%
6.00%
5.06%
5.08%
Percentage
5.00%
4.00%
3.00%
2.00%
1.00%
0.00%
Salford 1998/99 Salford 1999/00 Salford 2000/01
Ranking against all Greater Manchester Councils
Ranking against family authorities
Range for all Metropolitan Councils
Quartile level for Salford
Average Mets
1999/00
- 7th
- 3rd
- 1.1% 13.4%
- 6th Quartile
Average
Top Quartile Met Salfords 1 Year
Families 1999/00
Authorities
Target 2000/01
1999/00
Salfords 5 Year Salfords Current
Target
Position 2001/02
Performance Indicator Action Plan
Comments on Current Performance:
Current performance is worse than at year end. This is in line with national trends.
Barriers to Improvement:
A restructure of the department took place in April 2001 and staff are still bedding in.
Housing benefit was centralised which has had an effect on performance.
Current/Proposed Action:
Staff to continue to take appropriate action. Staff are given fortnightly action lists of people
hitting the criteria. Additional training to be carried out, overtime to be introduced, additional
performance monitoring and reality checks and there has been an increase of legal action
being taken and this is likely to continue.
Top Quartile to be Achieved By (Date):
Lead Officer:
Dave Walsh
No date given
Performance is poor
Rent arrears of current tenants as a proportion of the Council's rental income (BVPI 66b)
10.00%
9.00%
8.00%
Percentage
7.00%
6.00%
5.45%
5.00%
4.00%
3.80%
3.75%
3.54%
3.50%
3.85%
3.00%
2.00%
1.00%
0.00%
Salford 1998/99 Salford 1999/00 Salford 2000/01
Ranking against all Greater Manchester Councils
Ranking against family authorities
Range for all Metropolitan Councils
Quartile level for Salford
Average Mets
1999/00
- N/A
- N/A
- N/A
- N/A
Average
Families
1999/00
Top Quartile Met Salfords 1 Year Salfords 5 Year Salfords Current
Authorities
Target 2000/01
Target
Position 2001/02
1999/00
Performance Indicator Action Plan
Comments on Current Performance:
Current performance is marginally worse than at year end. This is in line with national trends.
Barriers to Improvement:
A restructure of the department took place in April 2001 and staff have taken time to bed in.
Also Housing benefit was centralised at the same time.
Current/Proposed Action:
Staff to continue to take appropriate action to recover arrears. New procedures manual
distributed. Additional training to be carried out, overtime to be introduced, additional
performance monitoring and reality checks and there has been an increase of legal action
being taken and this is likely to continue.
Top Quartile to be Achieved By (Date):
Lead Officer:
Dave Walsh
No date given
Poor
Average re-let time for local authority dwellings let in the financial year (BVPI 68)
120
106
94
100
Days
80
60
70
56
53
40
29
29
20
0
Salford 1998/99 Salford 1999/00 Salford 2000/01
Ranking against all Greater Manchester Councils
Ranking against family authorities
Range for all Metropolitan Councils
Quartile level for Salford
- N/A
- N/A
- N/A
- N/A
Average Mets Average Families Top Quartile Met Salfords 1 Year Salfords 5 Year Salfords Current
1999/00
1999/00
Authorities
Target 2000/01
Target
Position 2001/02
1999/00
Performance Indicator Action Plan
Comments on Current Performance:
As a result of a revised method of calculation on this indicator by the Audit Commission and the Housing
Inspectorate visit to Stockport MBC, Salford has revised the calculation method of BVPI 68 for
2001/02, which previously excluded a number of let property from the calculation. As a result of this
recalculation reported average re-let times has increased from 70 to 106 days.
However in terms of actual performance when using the same calculation method and comparing to the previous
year, performance has actually improved from 112. This improved performance is despite a major Housing
restructure and disruption in the first quarter of 2001. Given the implementation of the objectives set out in the
action plan below it is planned that further reductions will be made over the year to try and achieve the set target
of 56 days.
It should also be noted that District Auditor suggested that Salford Housing set local targets on re-let time
performance to highlight the housing market and demand across the city. These local targets show that Eccles
and Irlam have actually met the city target of 56 days and Swinton have improved performance since April 2001.
Barriers to Improvement:







Changing demand for social housing in general
Environmental issues and neglect of property by other landlords
Demographic changes in Salford
Housing market and competition
Surplus stock to actual demand
Lack of stock/low turnover in area where demand exists
Poor image and perceived crime and nuisance.
Current/Proposed Action:
Current status:
1.
2.
Best Value review on voids & letting.
Set up specialist letting teams each with Team Leader


3.
4.
Expand and increase resources to Marketing Team
Set up and deliver staff training packages specific to letting
property.

Set local “letting” and “average time relet” targets per team and
monitor.
Strategically review void property using ABC void process –
linked to disposal strategy.
Set up Best Practice team specific to letting.

5.
6.
7.
8.
Set void targets for contractor to return void property repaired in a
fit to let state.
9.
Review and revise procedures for void property.
10. Review IT monitoring of void property stages.
11. Launch letting interactive web site.
12. Open Property shop with high street location.
13. Review furnished tenancies.
14. Review and set letting property standard.
15. Review current letting policy.
16. Develop specific local lettings plans linked to marketing.
17. Introduce a new IT system for allocations/lettings property.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------Top Quartile to be achieved by (Date):
Various see above

Ongoing
Completed – set up in April
2000.
Completed June 2001.
Ongoing – 2-Day course on
letting scheduled for September
2001.
Set 2000 and reviewed April
2001.
 Ongoing work carried out by
Strategy Section.
 Established April 2001 and meet
monthly.
 Set August 2001 in consultation
with void repairs contractors.
 Reviewed May 2001 and revised.
Staff training completed on new
procedures.
 Reviewed August 2001 and
revised. Staff training completed
on new procedures for IT input.
Changes made on IT report
monitoring.
 Site now live with over 300
properties being advertised.
www.salford.gov.uk/housing
 Manager appointed and shop
lease secured. Due to open to the
public Jan 2002.
 Best value review underway and
team will be located to the
Property shop in November
2001.
 Letting standard drawn up and
under review.
 Letting policy revised and
currently out to consultation –
due for implementation April
2002.
 Ongoing with new Team Leaders
(Letting) taking central role.
 Under development by Saffron
due online for April 2002.
-----------------------------------------Lead Officer:
John Molloy
Performance Indicator Action Plan
Comments on Current Performance:
At 4 months into the financial year performance is on target at over 50 % of plan.
Barriers to Improvement:
Cuts to Capital Programme may prevent us from meeting the target. The senior officer has recently left leaving
one member of staff down.
Current/Proposed Action:
Continue to review all of the “Council Tax” “Voids”.
Recruit a Team Leader.
Review target if Programme cuts are implemented.
Pursue clearance area in Seedley.
Pursue Lucy/Muriel and Hamilton clearance in Broughton.
Top Quartile to be Achieved By (Date):
N/A
Lead Officer:
Bob Osborne
Appendix C
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
Improving
The % of the total tonnage of household waste arisings which have been recycled
BVPI 82a
30.0%
25%
25.0%
20.0%
15.0%
10.03%
10.0%
6.61%
5.0%
2.8%
3.3%
3.06%
0.0%
Salford 1997/98 Salford 1998/99
Salford 99/00
Salford 2000/01
Ranking against all Greater Manchester Councils - 2nd
Ranking against family authorities
Range for all Metropolitan Councils
Quartile level for Salford
Average Mets
1999/00
Average
Families
1999/00
Top Quartile Salfords Year 2 Salfords Current Salfords 5 Year
Met Authorities Target 2001/02 Position 4/12
Target
1999/00
2001/02
Higher
Performance Indicator Action Plan
Comments on Current Performance:
A notable improvement has occurred in relation to the City’s recycling rate, making it the second best
recycler in the Greater Manchester area during 2000/01. However, most of this improvement was due
to the production of soil conditioner by Greater Manchester Waste Ltd. This soil conditioner has now
been excluded from further recycling returns due to questions over its status as a recycled material.
Barriers to Improvement:
The most obvious barrier to improvement is the Environment Agency’s decision to no longer accept
soil conditioner as a recycled material. This aside the recycling carried out by the Directorate
regarding domestic waste has reached a plateau, in that all no-cost options for increasing recycling
have now been exhausted. Newspaper and magazine recycling via Paperchase may only yield up to
5000 tonnes p.a. and already the 4000 tonne mark is likely to be achieved in 2001/02. Glass recycling
can be increased via the siting of more recycling banks but not significantly. Therefore there is a need
to introduce kerbside collection schemes for elements of domestic waste which are recyclable, if
recycling targets are to be achieved as part of environmental and Best Value legislation requirements.
Without such investments the City’s steady improvement in recycling will fall away and recycling
rates will return to under 4% within 12 months, and as such this will leave the recycling element of
the Directorate’s work vulnerable to Best Value inspection. In order to address the issue of meeting
Best Value inspections, it has been identified that a realistic Recycling Action Plan needs to be
produced outlining the way forward to achieve statutory recycling standards. This plan will need to
have full Council support and will undoubtedly have financial implications. Attempts are already
being made to find funds to further recycling, and example being indicative bids for a kerbside
collection scheme and a new recycling centre in the Kersal/Charlestown New Deal area. Bids
submission have been put forward for these proposals.
Current/Proposed Action:
Work is being carried out on a feasibility study on introducing a pilot kerbside collection scheme to
an area of the City. Following the report work will be entered into as to how best to begin collecting
recyclables using this system, be it internally or externally provided. In addition improvements will
be made to increasing recycling tonnages gleaned from existing schemes via expanding facilities and
increasing public awareness as to the needs to recycle.
Top Quartile to be Achieved By (Date):
Lead Officer:
2004
Malcolm Thorpe
Assistant Director (Contract Services)
No Comparative No
The cost per square kilometer of keeping relevant land and relevant highways, for which the authority is responsible, clear of litter
and refuse
BVPI 85
£0.32
£0.31
£0.30
£0.30
£0.29
£0.29
£0.28
£0.28
£0.28
£0.27
£0.26
Salford
1997/98
Salford
1998/99
Salford 99/00
Salford
2000/01
Average Mets
1999/00
Average
Families
1999/00
Top Quartile Salfords 1 Year
Met Authorities Target 2001/02
1999/00
Ranking against all Greater Manchester Councils
Ranking against family authorities
Range for all Metropolitan Councils
Quartile level for Salford
Salfords
Current
Position 4/12
2001/02
Salfords 5 Year
Target
Higher
Performance Indicator Action Plan
Comments on Current Performance:
As is apparent from the table street cleansing costs have fallen. This is as a result of increased
mechanisation and reducing labour costs.
Barriers to Improvement:
In order to drive down costs still further there will be a need to invest in greater levels of
mechanisation together with improvements in productivity levels. However with regards to
immediate lowering of costs this will be difficult due to the initial costs of purchasing leasing vehicles
and meeting training needs.
Current/Proposed Action:
Due to savings achieved money is being invested in further mechanisation of street sweeping to
improve the quality of service provision. 100% service provision has been achieved as a result of proactive sickness management which has led to increased productivity and kept unproductive time to a
minimum.
Top Quartile to be Achieved By (Date):
Lead Officer:
2005
Malcolm Thorpe
Assistant Director (Contract Services)
Poor
The number of household waste collections which were missed per 100,000 collections
BVPI 88
350
328.00
300
262.94
250
200
190
150.23
150
123
98
90
100
70
50
0
Salford 1998/99 Salford 1999/00 Salford 2000/01
Average Mets
1999/00
Ranking against all Greater Manchester Councils
Ranking against family authorities
Range for all Metropolitan Councils
Quartile level for Salford
Average
Families
1999/00
Top Quartile Salfords 1 Year Salfords Current Salfords 5 Year
Met Authorities Target 2001/02 Position 4/12
Target
1999/00
2001/02
Lower Figure Preferable
Performance Indicator Action Plan
Comments on Current Performance:
It is apparent that there has been a significant increase in the number of bins missed per 100,000
collections made. This is entirely due to the introduction of the 4-day working week in May 2001.
As is the case with any major change to service provision, the new collection methods required a
period of ‘bedding in’ before they were perfected. Missed collection levels have now started to fall as
the 4-day week service is accepted, and understood, by both service providers and customers alike.
Barriers to Improvement:
It is anticipated the service will improve still further in reliability terms over the coming months and
as such no barriers to improvement are envisaged. In relation to the eventual year end performance
figures however, these may be higher than would have been preferred due to the initial high level of
missed bins.
Current/Proposed Action:
Constant service quality monitoring by Environmental Co-ordinators, and the associated productivity
payments related to reducing missed bin occurrences are expected to improve the service over the
coming months.
Top Quartile to be Achieved By (Date):
Lead Officer:
2003
Malcolm Thorpe
Assistant Director (Contract Services)
No Comparative
The % of people satisfied with cleanliness standards
(i.e. keeping relevant land clear of litter and refuse)
BVPI 89
80%
70%
70%
60%
50%
40%
40%
32%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Salford
1997/98
Salford
1998/99
Salford 99/00
Salford
2000/01
Ranking against all Greater Manchester Councils
Ranking against family authorities
Range for all Metropolitan Councils
Quartile level for Salford
Average Mets
1999/00
Average
Families
1999/00
Top Quartile
Met
Authorities
1999/00
Salfords 1
Year Target
2000/01
Salfords
Current
Position 4/12
2001/02
Salfords 5
Year Target
Higher
Performance Indicator Action Plan
Comments on Current Performance:
At 32% satisfaction level (recorded 1999) there is an urgent need to improve the publics perception of
street cleansing levels, particularly as upon inspection nearly 90% of the City’s streets score high or
acceptable levels of cleanliness. In an attempt to improve resident’s perceptions the Directorate has
increased the level of street sweeping mechanisation to increase frequency of sweeps. In addition
greater daily coverage is now achieved by including a higher level of weekend sweeping.
Barriers to Improvement:
The biggest problem facing the Directorate regarding satisfaction levels re. street cleanliness is one of
‘perception’. Most people when asked about street cleanliness take several factors into account. i.e.
physical appearance of buildings, derelict land, untidy street furniture, graffiti, vandalism etc. What is
required to get a true picture of people’s perception is that they understand what is meant by ‘street
cleansing’.
Current/Proposed Action:
In order to achieve this ‘true picture perspective’, and as part of the Best Value consultation
requirement, the Directorate has commissioned the Tidy Britain Group to carry out formal
consultation exercises over the next 3 years involving face-to-face questionnaires and focus groups, to
investigate in more detail residents true perceptions on street cleansing quality. The first year’s
results are expected in October 2001. As mentioned previously it expected due to greater levels of
mechanised sweeping and a developing emphasis on enforcement in relation to preventing littering
and fly-tipping it is expected that residents perceptions will improve over the coming 3 years.
Top Quartile to be Achieved By (Date):
Lead Officer:
2004
Malcolm Thorpe
Assistant Director (Contract Services)
Good
The % of highways that are of a high or acceptable standard of cleanliness
LPI
100.00%
97.1%
96%
95.00%
92.71%
91%
89.0%
90.00%
89%
88.8%
84.1%
85.00%
80.00%
75.00%
Salford
1997/98
Salford
1998/99
Salford
99/00
Salford
2000/01
Ranking against all Greater Manchester Councils
Ranking against family authorities
Range for all Metropolitan Councils
Quartile level for Salford
Average
Mets
1999/00
Average
Families
1999/00
Top Quartile Salfords 1
Salfords
Salfords 5
Met
Year Target
Current
Year Target
Authorities
2001/02 Position 4/12
1999/00
2001/02
Higher
Performance Indicator Action Plan
Comments on Current Performance:
At almost 90% of all streets cleaned scoring a high or acceptable standard of cleanliness the
Directorate’s performance is good however, as can be seen previous scores of 97% have been
recorded. This apparent fall in standards is due more to improved monitoring standards than poor
cleansing. This has been brought about by external training by the Tidy Britain Group on how to
score street cleanliness more accurately. As a consequence Environmental Co-ordinators give harsher
and more critical marks to street cleanliness in a move constantly improve cleanliness standards. In
addition to ensure 100% service provision a partnership has been entered into with a manufacturers of
street cleansing sweepers to provide and maintain (under contract hire) vehicles at all times.
Barriers to Improvement:
The Directorate is constantly striving to improve street cleansing levels by improving street sweeping
techniques (i.e. increased mechanisation), which consequently increases the frequency of sweeps.
The only barriers to this aim is the availability of funding to purchase mechanised sweepers, and also
the continuing anti-social behaviour of those members of the public who continue to drop litter.
Current/Proposed Action:
New funding opportunities are constantly being sought to acquire more mechanised street sweeping
machines via New Deal for Communities, SRB etc. In addition in relation to preventing littering,
Salford Pride constantly carries out innovative anti-litter campaigns both at schools and at community
levels. Enforcement is now also being seriously pursued with help and advice from the Tidy Britain
Group. Currently the service is being reviewed with a view to increasing the use of mechanised
sweepers and increasing street cleansing presents at the weekend to address known litter hotspots.
Top Quartile to be Achieved By (Date):
Lead Officer:
2003
Malcolm Thorpe
Assistant Director (Contract Services)
Good
The % of responses within the target times
(for responding to Environmental Health and Trading Standards complaints and requests for service)
LPI
98.0%
97.1%
97.0%
95.99%
96.0%
95.5%
95%
94.96%
95.0%
95.0%
94.0%
92.62%
93.0%
92.0%
91.0%
90.0%
Salford
1997/98
Salford
1998/99
Salford 99/00
Salford 00/01
Average Mets
1999/00
Average
Families
1999/00
Top Quartile Salfords 1 Year
Met Authorities Target 2001/02
1999/00
Ranking against all Greater Manchester Councils
Ranking against family authorities
Range for all Metropolitan Councils
Quartile level for Salford
Salfords
Current
Position 4/12
2001/02
Salfords 5 Year
Target
Higher
Performance Indicator Action Plan
Comments on Current Performance:
Although targets are set at responding to 95% of all requests within 3 days, this is the most stringent
target within the Greater Manchester Authorities. Performance in the 1 st four months of the year
shows that we are likely to meet the 95% target over the year. Seasonal variations, due to officers
taking annual leave at this time, reflect in a slightly lower performance for the first 4 months.
Barriers to Improvement:
These specific services have recently been required to deliver increased proactive services through
changes in central legislation e.g. food inspections, contaminated land etc. without the benefit of
additional resources. Vacancies within the Trading Standards Division have had a detrimental effect
on the ability to respond within target times.
Current/Proposed Action:
To try to improve the 95% rate significantly would require substantial increases in resources for little
benefit, whereas improving response rates from much lower targets would show much higher
performance using the same resources. e.g. 4 authorities in Greater Manchester have targets between
7-10 days in recognition of Best Value continuous improvement requirements and our determination
to maintain our Charter Mark for these services, performance will geared to surpassing the 3-day
target whenever possible.
Top Quartile to be Achieved By (Date):
Lead Officer:
2005
Nigel Powell
Assistant Director (Public Protection)