Agenda item

The Unitary transformation programme leading up to vesting day focused on ensuring that the new Council was operational on 1^st April 2020. Subsequently, the Better Buckinghamshire programme was developed to enable the Council to achieve the ambition detailed in the unitary business case, and to realise the benefits from achieving this. This programme is leading a series of service reviews to modernise and optimise services for the Unitary Council, driving innovation and improving customer experience. Members are invited to comment on and note the contents of the report.

Contributors:

John Chilver, Cabinet Member for Finance, Resources, Property and Assets

Roger Goodes, Service Director for Policy and Communications

Matthew Everitt, Assistant Director for Service Improvement

Richard Ambrose, Service Director for Corporate Finance (s.151 Officer)

Papers:

Better Buckinghamshire update report

The Committee received a report on the Better Buckinghamshire Programme. Councillor J Chilver, Cabinet Member for Finance, Resources, Property and Assets presented the update and summarised the report which was appended to the agenda pack.The Better Buckinghamshire programme was developed to enable the Council to achieve the ambition detailed in the unitary business case, and to realise the benefits from achieving this. The programme includes a series of service reviews to modernise and optimise services for the unitary council, driving innovation and improving customer experience.

The Cabinet Member highlighted the following key points:

• The aim of the Better Buckinghamshire Programme was not only to deliver the £18.6m savings as noted in the unitary business case, but to provide more efficient, streamlined services to residents. Whilst the Resources Portfolio led on the delivery of the programme, commitment and engagement from all service areas was vital to ensure that the programme would be successful. Paragraphs 3.2 to 3.4 of the report highlighted the main challenges to date, which included an increased level in demand in some areas such as child protection, homelessness and issues carried forward from legacy authorities.
• The Council had made good progress with service reviews, as detailed in appendix A of the report and they were on track for completion at the end of next year. At present, of the thirty-one reviews, ten had been completed and nineteen were in progress.
• To date, 56 staffing posts had been deleted and a saving of £2.2 million had been achieved. The target saving for this financial year was £2.6 million. These savings were achieved predominantly through staff reductions, contract harmonisation and property rationalisation.
• In terms of governance, the service improvement board continued to meet monthly, this was chaired by the Deputy Chief Executive and the Cabinet Member and Deputy Cabinet Member were regularly updated on progress.

During discussion, comments and questions raised by the Committee included:

• Members were keen to understand what work had been undertaken on property rationalisation which would also be discussed under agenda item 7. Due to the pandemic, staff working patterns had been impacted and there needed to be an evidence based approach to ensure adequate office accommodation remained in a hybrid model of working. It was noted that it would take time to build an evidence base, and eighteen months of covid restrictions had impacted this data collection. Early assessments indicated that approximately 100,000 square foot of office space would be required, with savings and income opportunities possible through letting spaces out and capital receipts of potential disposals. The full Work Smart strategy had yet to be implemented for a long enough period of time to gather enough data for thorough analysis. However, some buildings had already been successfully let, including office space at Easton Street office space, High Wycombe which provided a revenue stream to the Council.

• A member requested that where percentages and numbers were used within reports, could both percentages and actual numbers be consistently used to ensure data clarity and assist understanding. A member added that a visual progress meter would also be beneficial to understand the stage the Council was at with the Better Buckinghamshire programme.

• Members discussed the savings that had been delivered to date as noted on table 6.3 of the report. Not all savings would be realised until each of the service reviews had been completed. Some external factors such as the length of property lease contracts impacted the timeframe of savings being made.
• A member requested a progress update on devolving services to Town and Parish Councils as noted in the report. Members were advised that the Communities Portfolio was responsible for this process, however it was noted that this was an important part of the unitary business programme. Town and Parish Councils had been invited to submit a list of assets and services for this opportunity, some of which were selected for a pilot phase. A number of assets across all community board areas were in the process of being reviewed as part of the devolution programme. A decision on the devolution of one of the community centres in High Wycombe had recently been made by the Cabinet Member for Communities.
• A member asked whether there were opportunities to reduce the transformation budget which was £17 million, of which £6.5 million had been committed. It was reported that external resources had been used in the early stages of the programme, however as the programme developed these specialist skills were transferred to the internal team which removed reliance on external resources.  These external resources were now just providing technical expertise to support reviews. As reviews had progressed, it was continually assessed how projects could be delivered more efficiently. Members were assured that opportunities for reducing the cost of the programmes were monitored through the governance model, with business cases being submitted to the service improvement board for any costs required.  Many of these had been rejected where feasibility and returns were not adequate. The Committee was assured that the transition budget was only used as necessary.
• The Committee requested that in future reports, more granular data be provided on the programme that underpins assurances made and evidences the working governance model.