Agenda item

(Report of the Leader of the Council)

Report of the Leader of the Council to advise members of the Local Government Association (LGA) Corporate Peer Challenge Report and seek approval for the draft action plan in response to its recommendations and any follow-up actions to complete the challenge in the required timescale.

The Chair welcomed the Leader of the Council, the Assistant Director, Policy & Performance and the Corporate Project Coordinator.

The Leader of the Council introduced the report confirming that the Council had received a comprehensive and complementary report. The report had been published to comply with the 31^st  January 2025 deadline and deadline of the 31^st March to publish the final version of the action plan and the progress review from the LGA expected in September were highlighted.

The Committee made the following comments/observations and asked the following questions:

1. It was acknowledged that the report noted that the Council was doing and that well, it noted the financial situation and that it is being addressed.

Officer confirmed that the financial situation was highlighted, and a lot of work was going on to factor in the financial challenges, which is why they are not able to finalise the action plan until this process is completed.

2. Why had it taken so long for the Council to hold a Peer Review following the previous review in 2013?

Officers confirmed that there had been two changes in Chief Executive since 2013. The review was carried out under one Chief Executive, the Council then had to allow time to work through the development plan. Another review was planned but a number of factors, including the passing of the LGA Member supporting them, followed by a member of staff, as well as timing around political factors. However, the Council continued to engage with the LGA and when the previous Chief Executive announced their retirement the decision was taken for this happen.

The Chair highlighted that the current Chief Executive had raised the Peer Review in one of their first conversation.

3. How are we addressing the comments around lack of engagement from some Members.

Officers confirmed that Member engagement was highlighted in terms of lack of take up of training and learning opportunities, in particular in relation to the Audit and Governance Committee and this something that the Council needed to get to the bottom of, to support Members to access learning meaningfully. There was also limited take up of opportunities for Members to join in during the three-day Peer challenge and that is something that we would want to see improving when they return in September. It was noted the majority of members attended the member briefing held recently to relay the findings from the report.

4. How are we going to manage our assets to ensure that there is no more burden on the Council and taxpayer? Clarification around the steering group and confirmation that the Asset Management Strategy would being coming back to Corporate Scrutiny Committee?

It was confirmed that this was picked up by Officers prior to the review and discussions were held during the review, at the same time that the Asset management Strategy was approved. Work now needed to  make sure that details plans were in place to close any risks down and maintain assets.

It was confirmed that the steering group was currently officer based, made up of Executive and Assistant Directors who meet quarterly, and that the frequency was being increased.

The Committee suggested that following the review that the report needed looking at again and highlighted the importance of the plans being progressed at pace.

5. Concerns around the events of last August and the time taken to respond to support communities, so they know that Council are listening. Clarification around the work around honest conversations and that this was not a holding exercise whilst the Government strategy was being prepared. The importance of an honest conversation amongst themselves, whether with the public or cross-party about why events happened and how the Council should respond and how the Council could ensure that these conversations could be truly honest without respondents  feeling they will be judged for their views.

It was confirmed that there were consultants in place carrying out a piece of work which was planned to come to Cabinet in April with an action plan of what was to follow based on the recommendation from the specialists.

The Leader confirmed that they had a meeting scheduled with the consultants for an update coming up and they would let Members know as soon as possible what was happening. It was highlighted that Is incumbent on Councillors to continue to make sure they are listening to residents as leaders in our communities. They highlighted that its important that they find out the reasoning behind the actions of residents and why they are feeling disenfranchised.

6. What ‘asset-based community engagement' was?

It was confirmed that this was about recognising the strength, skills and diversity within the community and the Council supporting and facilitating communities to use these tools to support their own development and growth and support each other. Good examples of this cold be found via the Cooperative Councils’ Innovation Network. Co-operative Councils' Innovation Network Home Page

7.     There are lots of action plans, but how will the Council ensure that they prioritise in terms of delivery, and how will they compromise and try not to do everything and achieve nothing? It was confirmed that Scrutiny would like to review the actions quarterly and understand what can be achieved.

Officers confirmed that the Council were trying to focus on what they  needed to deliver in the next year and to bring transparency and oversight to those recommendations. Officer oversight would be through the Corporate Management Team performance board and as part of the quarterly cycle this will be brought to Cabinet.

8.     Clarification over the Equality, Social Inclusion and Health Impact Assessment as section four seems quite generic?

Officers confirmed that this is the first cycle of the new style impact assessment which is far more detailed than it was, and that this was not just a one off and as the plan develops would be revisited and will have a contribution from all officers involved in the plan.

9.     Clarification around the impact of devolution planning and how the council would manage resourcing and how this will affect delivery of the action plan when all of the policies and structure that the Council have in place would no longer exist?

The Leader confirmed that they had been at a meeting of the Staffordshire Leaders Board talking about next steps but that for the moment the day job must go on serving the residents and getting Tamworth in the best place it can be for the future.

It was confirmed that an internal project group has been set up and these matters were being considered. Some key risks have been identified, such as retaining staff, managing budgets and what happens in year three. There are lots of unknowns but that they would come back to the Committee in the future with what they do know and what they are planning but for now they will continue to deliver with what they have.

10.In relation to Future High Street Fund and communication, whether digital notice boards had been considered?

The Leader confirmed that they had concerns over communications, and this has improved with the hoardings. The communications team have done a lot including making videos to let residents know what is going on. The Leader and Portfolio Holder also went around and spoke to retailer down the middle entry, and they were surprised at the amount of misinformation out there. Digital signs had not been considered.

11.Clarification around the performance management framework and what this is?

It was confirmed that this is an internal document that was included in the position statement for the LGA and links into the annual Performance Development Reviews for employees.

12. A comment was made tin respect to the home/hybrid working that a recent study from nature.com that a hybrid schedule with two days working from home does not damage performance but that more than that could affect productivity.

13.Why the BRAG key was not filled out?

Officers confirmed that this was a draft and that timings and objectives were still being confirming making it impossible to fill in but that this would be completed for the deadline of the 31^st March 2025.

The Committee acknowledged the committed and hard-working staff and moved a motion to:

Extend thanks to all staff who have presented Tamworth in a positive light during the recent peer review.

(Moved by Councillor M Couchman and seconded by M Summers)