Skip to main content

Issue - meetings

Service Performance Report 2025-26 Quarter 2

 

 

Meeting: 08/01/2026 - Cabinet (Item 14.)

14. Council Priority and Service Performance Report 2025/26 Q2. pdf icon PDF 561 KB

Purpose:

To provide an update on progress on Cotswold District Council’s priorities and service performance.

 

Recommendation:

That Cabinet resolves to:    

1.     Note overall progress on the Council priorities and service performance for 2025-26 Q2 (July-September 2025)

Additional documents:

Decision:

The purpose of the report was to provide an update on progress on the Council’s priorities and service performance for Q2 July – September 2025.

 

Councillor Mike Evemy, Leader of the Council, introduced the report and highlighted that the report was to provide sufficient information for the Council to monitor service performance and challenge delivery as needed.

The Council had adopted its Corporate Plan 2025–2028 in September 2025, setting out its purpose, vision, values, key priorities, and success measures,  progress on Corporate Plan actions for Q2 (July–September 2025) were reported, including initiatives across governance, organisational development, digital transformation, community engagement, economic growth, and service delivery.

It was noted that annexes A and B provided an overview of progress.

 

Resolved that Cabinet noted overall progress on the Council priorities and service performance for 2025-26 Q2 (July-September 2025).

 

Meeting: 05/01/2026 - Overview and Scrutiny Committee (Item 284)

284 Service Performance Report 2025-26 Quarter 2 pdf icon PDF 562 KB

Purpose

To provide an update on progress on the Council’s priorities and service performance.

 

Cabinet Member

Councillor Mike Evemy, Leader of the Council

 

Lead Officer

Alison Borrett, Senior Performance Analyst

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The purpose of the report was to provide an update on progress on the Council’s priorities and service performance.

 

The report was introduced by Councillor Mike Evemy, Leader of the Council, and Alison Borrett, Senior Performance Analyst.

 

In questioning and discussion, the following points were noted:

  • The targets used across many services were predominantly government mandated. These included both time-based targets and percentage measures, whilst other targets, such as those for waste services, were set at a service level. Overall, approximately 70% of the targets were determined by government requirements, with 30% established by individual services.
  • Statutory and service targets provided a clear set of expectations, particularly for nationally mandated measures. Government-set targets were intended to ensure consistent performance monitoring across councils. Officers highlighted that LG Inform, the Local Government Association’s data-sharing platform, could be used to compare the Council’s performance with other authorities.
  • That the “two decimal place rule” should be reconsidered to reflect best practice. It was noted that the data could be rounded if requested.
  • There had been some delays in council rebates for residents. These challenges were partly due to the transition from Housing Benefit to Universal Credit for working-age claimants. Performance had improved significantly in the second quarter, although cumulative annual figures still reflected earlier delays.
  • Given the current planning context, including the loss of the five-year land supply and the tilted balance in favour of applications, it was prudent to allocate additional funds to defend planning decisions.
  • Reporting service failures as a separate measure for missed bin collections would provide clearer insight into operational performance.
  • Household waste recycling figures could be negatively affected when less waste arises, which also influenced decisions around waste collection services.
  • The green waste recycling rate could be misleading during a dry season during summer months. It was confirmed that green waste figures could be reported separately from general recycling and normal waste to provide insight into performance.
  • The Council continued to support the Royal Agricultural University (RAU)’s Innovation Village application and officers were asked to ensure strategic-level representations to progress it through the planning process.
  • Engagement with towns and parishes had included discussions on local government reorganisation (LGR) alongside the Local Plan, particularly at the November forums in Moreton-in-Marsh and Cirencester. A summer update on local government reorganisation would provide an opportunity to launch the public consultation.
  • Town and Parish councils had requested more information on the proposed neighbourhood partnerships. There was a challenge in providing definitive details, as boundaries and structures would ultimately be determined by the new authority or authorities.
  • The delivery of affordable homes was underachieving. The data was not yet being used to inform the Local Plan but could be used in future to support increasing affordable housing provision.
  • LGR had limited the Council’s ability to pursue more direct control over housing delivery, leaving the provision of genuinely affordable, socially rented homes largely dependent on the commercial decisions of developers and housing associations.

 

 

Related Pages