Agenda item

The Chief Executive introduced the report, advising that in January 2020, West Lindsey District Council had received a visit from a Peer Team provided by the Local Government Association.

The final report was expected to be presented to the Annual Council in May 2020, however due to the impact of Covid-19, that meeting had been cancelled.

The report sought to provide an update on progress against the recommendations arising from the Peer Review

The full report was available at Appendix 1 to the report.  The overall message from the Peer Group was very positive and they had been particularly complimentary about the passion and commitment of both elected Members and Officers.

The final report had made ten recommendations. These had previously been shared with Members and were set out at Section 2 of the report. 

The presentation attached at Appendix 2 provided an update on progress against the recommendations and this was summarised to the meeting, noting good progress had been made, in particular, in implementing the Senior Structure and simplifying Customer First.

The Chairman of the Governance and Audit Committee assured Members that the Action Plan would be monitored by his Committee and would remain a priority for the Council.

Debate ensued and the Chairman of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee shared with the meeting her experience of the review process, which she considered had been unfairly led and the questioner negatively influenced by previous comments.  Objectivity she felt had been lacking, and she felt the criticisms levied against the Scrutiny Committee, which she felt was in its infancy under her leadership, had been given undue prominence within the report.

Councillor Rollings believed there was a greater conflict between community services/ well-being role of the Authority and the income generation ethos of the Council, which the report failed to highlight but needed to be investigated.

Noting the recommendation, the Council should develop a Cultural Strategy, she urged that culture be considered in the widest sense, personal development, well-being and mental health. There was a real need to improve Sporting activities and  participation rates across the District and to seek a view from the community.

Acknowledging all the great work the Council and Officers undertook, Councillor Rollings indicated she could not support the report, due mainly to her concerns around the process which had been undertaken, its impartiality and fairness.

In response, the Chief Executive confirmed that the Cultural Strategy would be developed in the widest sense, encompassing, arts heritage and leisure in a single strategy.   Regarding the process, it was imperative that all involved felt it was inclusive, and such Councillor Rollings comments would be fed back to the LGA.

In response to further comments, and concerns regarding how the current Pandemic may affect performance particularly financially and the need to improve community outreach and improve stakeholder communication the Chief Executive advised the Peer Review had concluded the Council was in a good financial position. Acknowledging Councillors’ concerns, the planned half year review of the Medium Term Financial Plan would set out any adjustments needed in response to the Pandemic.  With regards to community outreach and the Cultural Strategy the purpose was to capture current activity, where it was being delivered and where the Council might do more to support parishes and communities, as such this part of the action plan would entail stakeholder consultation and communication.

The Action Plan would be developed and progressed using existing tools such as the MTFP, the Annual Governance Statement and the Corporate Plan, for example, as opposed to creating a separate line of activity to monitor. As previously advised this would be monitored by the Governance and Audit Committee and should any areas of the Action Plan not be addressed by one of these key documents then separate work would be undertaken.

In response to earlier comments, the Leader shared his experience of the Peer Review, which he considered had been very different. He acknowledged that a number of circumstances had considerably changed since the review.  Whilst the lockdown had brought challenges it had also brought with it some added benefits around increased activity rates, cycling and walking which needed to be harnessed.  He considered there was a real opportunity to improve the offer and moved the recommendations.

With reference to succession planning, as Chairman of the Joint Staff Consultative Committee, this area had been a concern for a while.  The Council, did have an ageing workforce and lots of “single” jobs with individuals holding considerable knowledge and he considered there was real need for a risk based succession planning approach.   There were a number of good examples where proper succession planning had been really successful and vital and this needed to be replicated across the board.

The Director of Corporate Services advised that this was something that was done as part of work force planning, but due to the size of the organisation, it was developed on a risk based approached and timing appropriate.  Such matters were also captured in Service Plans, including personal development and identified individuals for progression to help with not only personal development but succession planning across the Council.  At the time of the peer review, there had been a number of interim contracts in place, whilst structures were been determined, this had now been resolved. 

Some considered the effectiveness of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee and had been questioned previously and were of the view that the Peer Review had confirmed that this continued to be the case. Attendance was poor and outcomes lacking

This view was strongly refuted, and the current Scrutiny Chairman outlined how the Committee had changed its approach, how it was calling external agencies to account and of the recent training undertaking specifically designed to improve effectiveness. As previously outlined to the meeting she did not consider the process had been a fair and balanced one.

The Monitoring Officer outlined some of the work he had undertaken to support the Committee since January.  The Chairman of the Governance and Audit Committee gave assurance that the effectiveness of all Committees was under review, including his own, and that an effectiveness review was something which all Committees would be subjected to at some point as part of good governance practices.  This would be very much a collaborative approach.

Having being moved and seconded it was RESOLVED that: -

(a)     the final report of the Peer Challenge Group be accepted;

(b)     the report be published on the Council website; and

(c)     the progress made against the recommendations be welcomed.

Note:         The meeting adjourned, following consideration of the above item at 9.09 pm and re-convened at 9.14pm.

At the request of the Chairman, the Monitoring Officer repeated the roll-call to ensure all Members had returned to the meeting.

Each Member re-affirmed their attendance.