Agenda item

To receive the findings of the SHDC LGA Corporate Peer Challenge and an associated action plan (report of the Assistant Director – Corporate enclosed).

Consideration was given to the report of the Assistant Director – Corporate which requested that Cabinet receive the findings of the SHDC LGA Corporate Peer challenge and an associated action plan.

The Leader presented the report, and addressed the particular items for concern as raised by the Peers:

·       Overspend in previous year (£842,000 rather than £1 million as quoted in the report) – in line with Councils nationally, there were significant financial pressures aligned to homelessness, contract prices, pay, power and fuel.

·       Internal Drainage Boards – This was an area of substantial challenge and although money had been received from central government, it was not sufficient to offset the full impact on the budgets for this or the last year. 

·       A new Cabinet had been in place following the District Election, and Portfolio Holders were working well with officers to identify options, efficiencies and income for both the current year and future years – this work was ongoing.

·       The figures produced in March and reviewed by the Peer Review were now being updated as part of next year’s budget setting process, with plans to be produced alongside that budget to address shortfalls.

·       The Authority did have solid reserves and good cash balances and was therefore in a good position to manage these challenges over the short to medium term. 

The following points were highlighted:

·       The Key Recommendation at 2.9 (Strengthen how the voice of residents and communities systematically inform future service delivery and unlock the potential of the voluntary community sector) suggested that systematically routing in service user and community views would strengthen SHDC’s intelligence on – and ability to respond to – service performance and community needs.  Members commented that a number of bodies were invited to Cabinet members but not many took the opportunity to attend – efforts should be made to encourage these bodies to attend so that their views could be heard.

·       The Peer Review stressed the need to look at more independence on scrutiny committees.  The Constitution currently did not allow for lay people to serve on the Governance and Audit Committee (BBC and ELDC did have lay people on their equivalent committees).  The Peer Review also stated that the Constitution was to be reviewed – what was the timescale for this?

·       There were a number of actions under the action plan – 1) Was there the capacity to deal with all of them; 2) What were the most important areas to contrate on; and 3) Within the Action Plan, a number of the housing–related actions were marked as N/A – why was this?

DECISION:

1)    That the findings from the LGA’s Corporate Peer Challenge at Appendix A be noted;

2)    That the action plan at Appendix B be approved; and

3)    That the update regarding the recommendations from the Housing Peer Review (Appendix C) be noted.

(Other options considered:

·       That the recommendations not be agreed.

Reasons for decision:

·       To ensure that Cabinet is formally sighted on the LGA Corporate Peer Challenge findings and has an action plan in place to take forward the recommendations.)