Agenda item

To consider the report of the Cabinet Member for Regeneration and Economy seeking to publish the feedback report and City Council response to the Corporate Peer Challenge, undertaken by a team of Local Government Association (LGA) officer and member peers in November 2017.

47.1    The Leader of the Council, Councillor James outlined the findings of the Local Government Association Peer Challenge as well as the action plan which had been drawn up. He stated that there had been positive progress since the last Peer Challenge which took place in 2013. By way of example, Councillor James highlighted the changes in the Council’s financial position as well as member/Officer relations.

47.2    With regard to areas to be considered, Councillor James stated the action plan was a matter of building on progress rather than criticism.

47.3    Councillor Hilton suggested continued working with Vision 2050 and queried how the Council was going to follow it up. He further shared his view that it required wide-ranging conversations for something that would benefit the City long term. Councillor James advised that there would be a debate at Council on this matter. As Gloucester was the capital of the county, the City should be putting its views forward.

47.4    The Chair queried whether the matter of Vision 2050 should be considered by Council or the Overview and Scrutiny Committee given the latter’s non-political nature. In response, Councillor James stated that it being considered by Council would give the subject the importance it requires.

47.5    The Managing Director stated that the Peer Review team had made clear that the Council’s achievements had shown that Gloucester was operating within a sphere which was at a higher level.

47.6    Councillor Pullen noted that it was a good report and that it was evident that there had been a vast array of improvements. With regard to the action plan, he expressed surprise that organisational change was being considered after the Together Gloucester re-organisation. He queried the need to bring in consultants and whether there was capacity within the Council. He also asked for examples of what their work had entailed.

47.7    The Managing Director advised that a further part of Together Gloucester was examining at processes and services. He further advised that Ignite was training Council staff in business process re-engineering and that this could not be achieved prior to the staff restructure. Additionally, the Managing Director stated that the Ignite team were halfway through their intended presence and they were training Council staff. He further stated that the process of identifying efficiencies would continue.

47.8    Councillor Wilson stated that the recommendation on a housing strategy covering Gloucester, Cheltenham and Tewkesbury was a good one but queried why, as it stood, it was exploratory rather than a serious commitment. The Managing Director advised that this was because it could not be guaranteed that partners will engage in the process.

47.9    In response to a comment from Councillor Dee on working with other authorities around housing strategy, Councillor James advised that after the adoption of the Joint Core Strategy, other areas would be brought into the strategy.

47.10  The Chair stated that Members were noticeable by their absence from the Peer Challenge report. He reported that he had attended a meeting about scrutiny with the Peer Challenge but this did not feature in the report. Councillor James stated that he did not attend this meeting but that it was not raised as a negative point and Member-Officer relations had improved.