To receive a report from the Assistant Director, Corporate.

James Gilbert, Assistant Director (Corporate) presented Members with the LGA Corporate Peer Challenge report and action plan, pages 121 to 160 of the Agenda refer.

Councillor Craig Leyland, as Leader of the Council and Portfolio Holder for Corporate Affairs informed Members that he was pleased to welcome the Peer Review team and that the resulting action plan had been positive for the Council.

Members were invited to put their comments and questions forward.

• A Member queried how the peer invitation process worked and whether specific areas of focus were highlighted to the Peers.  In response, the Leader of the Council advised Members that the Council requested the Peer Review and that it was undertaken according to a set criteria.   Members were further advised that the Leader of the Council was interviewed by the Lead Peer which enabled areas of challenge to be identified and examined in more detail.

• In relation to Peer Reviews undertaken at Partnership Councils, a Member queried the reason why the Council’s relationship with PSPS Limited was only highlighted by Boston Borough Council.

At this point in the Meeting, Councillor Jill Makinson-Sanders asked that it be noted that she was on the Board of Directors for PSPS Limited.

In response, the Assistant Director (Corporate) advised Members that Boston Borough Council’s Peer Review was undertaken by a different group of Peers and that a different line of enquiry had been highlighted which had resulted in independent recommendations that were different to those received by ELDC.

The Assistant Director (Corporate) further advised Members that the action plan would return to Overview Committee periodically to ensure that progress with delivery was monitored and tracked.

• The Chairman commented in support of the report and on the positive comments received on the way in which the Council’s Overview and Audit and Governance Committees carried out its respective responsibilities.

• A Member commented that the peer review process was a lighter touch approach in comparison to regimes undertaken by CQC and OFSTED.

• In reference to Recommendation 4 – ‘Prioritise Equality, diversity and inclusion (EDI) work around policies and embed it within the work of the Council, including identifying a corporate lead’, a Member stressed the importance of inclusivity and the need for greater diversity of Member age groups on the Council.  In response, the Chairman advised Members that she had become a Member of the Council at a young age 40 years ago and understood the concerns for encouraging younger representation. 

·         The Chairman further commented that the peer review system had evolved to a more fluid and open process which provided positive outcomes.

• Members commented on the advantages and disadvantages of the Committee system and responsibilities for decision making.

• A Member expressed concern with the need for a support system for newer Members of the Council and emphasised the benefit of a buddy system and greater diversity to help encourage and support future Members.

• Members commented on the benefits of appointing different politically aligned Members to the role of Chairman and Vice-Chairman for the Council’s Overview and Audit and Governance Committees.

• A Member spoke in support of ELDC being an effective democratic organisation with collective decision making.

• Members spoke in further support of a buddying or mentoring system for Councillors.

• In relation to Recommendation No 6 – ‘Continuously review and align organisational capacity in key priority areas to ensure ability to deliver ambitions’, a Member commented on concerns with the number of regeneration projects being undertaken when capacity was an issue, page 152 of the Agenda refers.

• A Member commented that Councillor skills could be better utilised and that the lack of a communal room at the Hub had a negative impact on Councillors.

• A Member queried whether scrutiny was undertaken effectively when compared to the Partnership Councils and expressed concern that communication within the Council was an ongoing issue.

• In reference to Recommendation No 3 – ‘Seize opportunities for deeper Greater Lincolnshire and strategic county-wide conversations about the place’, a Member commented on the need to seize opportunities for Greater Lincolnshire in light of local government reorganisation, page 151 of the Agenda refers.

• In reference to Recommendation No 10 (d) – ‘Increasing physical presence,’ a Member commented on the lack of physical presence of East Lindsey District Council and that further information was needed to ensure that Community Hubs and support for internet access in rural areas was undertaken.

• In reference to Recommendation No 2 – ‘Carry out a thorough review of the strategic effectiveness and influence of internal and external communication’, the Chairman advised Members that the same action was present on most Council’s peer reviews, page 151 of the Agenda refers.

• The Chairman further commented on the design faults of the Council Chambers which were not conducive to supporting Members to socialise and interact.

• The Leader of the Council advised Members that the Council was more effective with its current structure as the Executive system enabled quicker decisions to be made.   Members were assured that priority would be given to ensure that smaller communities received benefits and that funding was carefully managed. 

The Leader of the Council concluded that the peer process had been very effective and that future challenges faced through local government reorganisation would need careful consideration.

·         The Assistant Director (Corporate) advised Members that there had been a request for an amendment to Action 10 (d) and that a proposal would look to develop a Community Hub Network where it was recognised that there were challenges around rurality and digital access, page 158 of the Agenda refers. 

Members were further advised that a list of hubs at community locations which were supported by volunteers and community groups was listed on the Council’s website.

• A Member provided an example of a community shop in Sutton on Sea which had no signage to identify a relationship with ELDC and supported that a visible network of hubs was needed. 

·         In reference to Recommendation 5 – ‘Improve clarity and detail in financial and risk reporting to enhance governance and mitigate risk’, a Member spoke in support of receiving a simplified, yet sufficient level of detail for providing clarity, page 152 of the Agenda refers.  

• A Member commented that ELDC residents paid 46% of their rates towards the Partnership and queried whether value for money should be challenged.  In response, the Leader of the Council explained that provisions across the three Councils provided better value for money and that the figures residents paid was based on population. The Assistant Director (Corporate) further assured Members that the percentages were periodically reviewed and were based on consumption of the time officers spent working at each authority.

The Chairman thanked the Assistant Director (Corporate) and the Leader of the Council for their feedback.

No further comments or questions were received.

Following which, it was

RESOLVED:

That the LGA Corporate Peer Challenge report and action plan be noted.

N.B Councillor Craig Leyland, Leader of the Council and Portfolio Holder for Corporate Affairs left the Meeting at 12.07pm.