The report of the Interim Chief Executive is attached.

Contact: Tanya Miles (01743) 255811

The Committee received the report of the Interim Chief Executive which provided a summary of the arrangements in place to ensure delivery of the Council’s Improvement Plan. The Improvement Plan had previously been considered and endorsed by the Transformation and Improvement Overview and Scrutiny Committee, agreed by Cabinet, and approved by full Council in December.

The Service Director for Strategy and Change introduced and amplified the report. He explained that the plan had been developed through engagement with staff at all levels along with elected members, ensuring a range of views informed its aims and priorities. Good levels of awareness and understanding were reported across the organisation and ongoing communications activity were aligned to specific objectives detailed within the report.

He went on to explain that the Improvement Plan had been developed with a clear set of three overall aims, and nine priority programmes of action with governance structures aligned to these aims and priorities. Clear principles and arrangements to ensure accountability and responsibility for delivering the Plan had been established and were summarised at Appendix 1. Risk management and delivery monitoring were facilitated by the Corporate Programme Management Office (PMO). 

In terms of capacity to support and enable delivery, the plan’s priority programmes were led, resourced, and supported proportionately, drawing on the PMO and senior managers across the organisation. Additional capacity would be aligned as needed. Progress and impact were reported monthly to both the officer leadership board and the externally chaired Improvement Board, using activity milestones and key performance indicators. Periodic reporting to Cabinet and the Transformation and Improvement Overview and Scrutiny Committee was also planned. 

In response to a query about cashable savings and their reflection in the financial strategy, the Service Director for Strategy and Change explained that the report focused on arrangements for delivery rather than impact. The financial plan recently submitted to Cabinet and full Council, along with the refreshed transformation programme, would deliver savings and efficiencies set out in the medium-term financial plan and budget for 2026-27. Future reports would detail actions, impacts, and outcomes.

In response to a question regarding the management of capacity issues and the Committee’s assurance of the Improvement Plan’s deliverability, the Service Director for Strategy and Change confirmed that the Plan comprised a combination of existing programmes (which were already resourced), business-as-usual activities (which were prioritised), and new programmes that would require additional resources. Capacity was overseen by the Programme Management Office, with realignment of senior managers as necessary. Monthly monitoring arrangements were in place to escalate any risks of slippage arising from capacity constraints. It was noted that capacity and the pace of delivery were recognised as key risks to the Plan.

Upon further enquiry about mechanisms to manage shocks and ensure continuity of day-to-day operations, the Service Director for Strategy and Change advised that capacity to deliver remained a recognised risk and was subject to monthly assurance processes. Any risks of slippage were escalated to the leadership board for mitigation.

A query was raised about where the Committee could access the monthly reporting, performance dashboard, and key performance indicators (KPIs).  In response, it was confirmed that reporting was undertaken through established internal and external governance mechanisms, including the Leadership Board, Cabinet, Improvement Board, and the Transformation and Improvement Overview and Scrutiny Committee. The Committee was advised that outcomes would be publicly shared within these forums. Furthermore, it was noted that additional capacity was being aligned to support delivery, and that robust business and budget planning cycles would enable effective prioritisation.

In response to a query regarding the sources of assurance and independent validation beyond first-line assurance, the Service Director for Strategy and Change advised that first-line assurance was provided through internal programme management and governance arrangements. Additionally, he confirmed that reporting mechanisms to both internal and external audiences—including the externally chaired Improvement Board, which comprises external members such as representatives from the Local Government Association—served to provide independent assurance.

The Head of Policy and Governance further noted that the internal audit plan for 2026-27 included contingency days specifically allocated for the review of high-risk areas within the improvement programme. He assured the Committee that findings and assurance arising from this work would be reported back to the Committee as the reviews were undertaken.

In response to a query about whether the PWC transformational programme document was being used to inform the improvement plan, it was explained that an independent report funded by the Local Government Association was being commissioned, with stakeholder interviews and review of relevant materials. The report would be shared with the Transformation and Improvement Overview and Scrutiny Committee in the coming weeks and would inform future practice and the improvement plan. 

The Chair recommended that the Committee not merely note the report but decide whether sufficient assurance had been received.

RESOLVED:

To agree that adequate assurance had been obtained at this stage; and that the Committee would continue to review internal audit activities as improvements were made, with the understanding that assurance would be reassessed upon the presentation of additional evidence and outcomes.

Councillor Lumby voted against this recommendation.