Agenda item

To receive a report on the outcome of the Corporate Peer Challenge, together with the associated action plan.

The Panel considered the Corporate peer challenge report and action plan.

The report followed a 3-day visit of the Peer Challenge team, which comprised of members and officers from various professions and political parties and different authorities. The team undertook 40 meetings and interviews with 120 people including external stakeholders.

The Panel considered the Council motion regarding the process for selecting chairmen and vice chairmen of committees and panels. Some members supported the motion, pointing to the recommendation of the peer review team that the Council consider ways to strengthen its overview and scrutiny function, including as a suggested option of ‘opposition-led scrutiny’. It was stated that this was done in other councils, led to greater effectiveness, accountability and transparency, and was considered best practice. They further pointed out that this appeared to be the only recommendation that had not been carried through to the action plan.  It was suggested that the motion could be amended to focus on Overview and Scrutiny Panels, rather than all committees and panels.

Other members disagreed with the motion and felt that the issue highlighted in the peer report only contained a suggestion ‘to consider’ the matter, rather than a direct recommendation to make changes. They felt the current arrangements provided ample opportunity for the opposition to question the administration in a transparent way. It was also pointed out that there was a degree of uncertainty with LGR and it was felt that the current arrangements should stay in place to provide stability.

Members were reminded that the Council’s constitution provided for a series of secret ballots to take place at the annual Council meeting if a position for chairman or vice chairman was contested.

When considering other aspects of the peer report, Members noted mention of the good work of the housing team, though acknowledged the council was performing below the affordable housing target whilst noting the reasons for this.

In respect of Appendix 3 and the list of delivery activities, a member highlighted the need to continue to make representations regarding the upgrading of the A326. 

Members emphasised the need to maintain a running dialogue with town and parish councils regarding LGR. It was noted that a recent meeting had been held with all clerks to parish and town councils 2 weeks ago, and a further meeting involving NFALC was being arranged for 28 April at Lyndhurst Community Centre, to which all parish and town councils were invited.

A member felt that the development of an Asset Strategy and Action plan needed to be expedited and brought forward earlier than the July timescale. In response, officers explained the intention to bring this item to the next Panel meeting in June with a view to agreement by the Cabinet and Council in July. 

Members supported the intention to recruit councillors from more diverse backgrounds and age groups. This was a point for political leaders to consider and for the Council’s elections team to bear in mind when devising communications running up to the next election. They also supported the recommendations for member development initiatives in the report, and noted that discussions had been held with group leaders on how this would be responded to.

In summary overall, the Panel was pleased to note such a positive report from the Peer Review Team and felt that the Council should celebrate its achievements.

RESOLVED:

That the Cabinet be advised:

(i)             That having considered the Council motion regarding the process for selecting chairmen and vice chairmen of committees and panels, this Panel  recommends that the process should remain unchanged, for the reasons set out above.

(ii)            That the LGA’s feedback report be noted.

(iii)           That with the exception of the Panel’s views as per (i) above, the action plan at Appendix 2, the observations and feedback in Appendix 3 and the deliverables at Appendix 4, be endorsed.