LGA Corporate Peer Challenge: findings and recommendations
Minutes:
Cabinet considered the report regarding the findings and recommendations of the Local Government Association Corporate Peer Challenge.
The Chairman infofmed Cabinet that he wished to thank the LGA and Peer partners for undertaking the review. The Royal Borough had invited the LGA into the council to conduct the review, in order to provide an external assessment of its progress, and recommendations for further improvement. Their assessment and recommendations were set out in the LGA Corporate Peer Challenge Feedback Report, appendix A. he said that Cabinet welcomed the constructive feedback and looked forward to further improvements. There were 11 recommendations with Cabinet’s proposals detailed below:
|
Recommendation |
Cabinet recommendation. |
|
Recommendation 1 Prioritise embedding the Corporate Plan across the Council and the establishment of a new performance framework which links service plans and priorities to budget and risks over the medium term. |
That this is accepted. |
|
Recommendation 2 Refresh the Medium Term Financial Strategy (MTFS) with stronger links to the savings made by the Transformation Strategy?and underpinned by the creation of a?Transformation Fund to deliver the?benefits?needed. The first priority of the strategy should be to improve the customer experience. |
That this is accepted.
Work was already under way to develop the new MTFS linking with the agreed Corporate Plan. |
|
Recommendation 3 Establish a Member?development programme, including a new induction package for May 2023 which aligns to the strategic priorities of the Royal Borough. Group Leaders need to be fully involved in developing the programme to ensure ongoing member participation, throughout the term of office.? |
That this is accepted.
The Chairman welcomed group leaders working together in developing a development programme. |
|
Recommendation 4 Put in place stronger support for member casework that provides consistency and timeliness of response across all council functions. This will help members to carry out their ward work more efficiently and maintain residents’ confidence that their issues are being dealt with. |
That this is accepted. Officers will consider a range of options for providing stronger support. |
|
Recommendation 5 Review the current model of scrutiny committees. There are currently 4 scrutiny panels and one county-wide health scrutiny. It may be better for the committees to be more closely aligned to the priorities in the Corporate Plan and service delivery arrangements covering people, place and corporate functions. |
That this is accept, and move to three Scrutiny Panels, to align with the ‘Thriving Communities’, ‘Inspiring Places’ and ‘Council Trusted to Deliver’ objectives set out in the Corporate Plan. |
|
Recommendation 6 Revisit the terms?of reference and remit of?the joint Health Overview and Scrutiny Committee for East Berkshire as part of the establishment of the?ICS.?? |
That this is accepted is accepted. |
|
Recommendation 7 Review?Cabinet portfolios so that they are re-balanced across people,?place and corporate functions to enable more capacity to influence?at a sub-regional and national level alongside local place leadership responsibilities. |
That this is accept in part, noting changes have been made since the Peer Review. |
|
Recommendation 8 Develop a clear and consistent framework?on?the role and governance of?the arms-length?Council entities including Optalis, AFC and the Property Company. Shareholder responsibilities should be separated from those of?the strategic?client. |
That this is accepted.
|
|
Recommendation 9 Develop a localism strategy with town and parish councils and?community groups which promotes greater subsidiarity of decision making?and thus enabling RBWM to be more strategic. |
That this is accepted in part, with the review including a focus on relationships with partners and the community sector. A focus on partnership rather then devolution. |
|
Recommendation 10 Take advantage of the 25th anniversary of being a unitary council to work with the Youth Council and partners to set out a new 25-year vision for the Royal Borough. |
That this is accepted, pending their views. It should be noted that the 25th anniversary will be in 2023, rather than 2022, as originally suggested in the Feedback Report. |
|
Recommendation 11 Once the improvement plan for the Planning function is in place and beginning to have an impact, consider a peer review of the Planning Service to drive continuous improvement in 2023/24 and beyond. |
That this is accepted. |
Cllr Werner said he had taken part in a number of peer reviews but it looked like the council were listening to this one. Cllr Werner did comment that with regards to recommendation 7 that this had not been fully implemented there was still a Lead Member who held reasonability for Children’s Services, Adult Services, mental health and transformation, he suggested that this remit was too wide and there should be separate Lead Members undertaking the role. He was pleased to see recommendation 2 as it showed that the opposition comments had been listened to. With regards to the reduction in scrutiny panels he asked that this include an increase in members on the remaining panels to improve their knowledge base.
The Chairman replied that they would look into expanding the number of members on scrutiny panels. With regards to Cabinet portfolios these were driven by results and the portfolio holder referenced had demonstrated his value during the work undertaken in the pandemic. As with the other recommendations the chairman said that they always listened to sensible recommendations and that he looked forward to working with the other group leaders on the induction programme.
Cllr Jones said she felt that the peer review had done a good job and had listened to the feedback given to them. With regards to recommendation 9 she said that parish councils were an important tier of democracy so why was the recommendation only partly accepted. Recommendation 10 only says the Youth Council and not partners in officer recommendations, why?
Cllr Jones also mentioned that the report also mentioned ‘wider areas’ that had not been included in the 11 recommendations but were still very important and should be secondary priorities such as, mixed housing tenures, improving scrutiny with better forward planning, prioritisation of work and better resourced. There was also a need to improve member behaviour especially with social media, she recommended a second prioritisation list be included.
The Chairman responded that with regards to recommendation 9 parish councils were important and that the recommendation was to focus on partnership working rather then devolution. With regards to recommendation 10 this would include the Youth Council and other partners as recommended. With regards to the secondary recommendations they were being actioned such as town visions coming froward, the BLP aiding social housing, more work was needed to improve scrutiny and holding the administration to account, that there should be joint working with group leaders on member development and also improving members standards.
Cllr Bond mentioned that he had not been part of the peer reviews interviews but he had read the findings and felt that there were a lot of great stuff that should be discussed in another forum. He felt that there were a few areas missing such as further investigation in working with the LEP where there had been a line in the budget, especially given the Levelling Up White Paper. Also Health and Wellbeing and Health Scrutiny as it seemed odd to recommend a review of a committees TOR if that committee continue not to meet. He licked the mention of financial management but felt more information was required on how they felt audit and governance could be developed. With regards to councillor case work there may not have been a response to an inquiry because it may have been a complex area, a new bit of software recording case work may not take things forward.
The Chairman replied that with regards to member case work there was work underway to implement the new system including support for members to follow up enquiries. With regards to the LEP he agreed that there was more work to be done and he felt we could be a prominent role in place leadership. With regards to health scrutiny this was being looked at and he was happy to discuss audit and governance with group leaders.
Resolved unanimously: that Cabinet notes the report and:
i) Reviews the LGA Corporate Peer Challenge Feedback Report, and considers the recommendations made by the LGA Corporate Peer Challenge team.
ii) Agrees to accept the 11 recommendations made in the report, subject to ‘and partners’ be added to recommendation 10.
iii) Agrees to develop and publish an Action Plan within an eight week time frame, responding to the feedback and recommendations and setting out how these will be taken forward.
Supporting documents:
PDF 398 KB