Scrutiny Remit – Hertfordshire County Council’s (HCC) relationship with District
and Borough Councils
1. Summary of Findings
St Albans City and District Council (SADC) welcomes the opportunity to
respond to Hertfordshire County Council’s scrutiny of relationships between
County, District and Borough Councils. We have consulted widely with District
Councillors and officers to respond fully to the remit and the information below
represents an overview of findings. We fully recognise the areas of strength
and good practice which we have outlined below. In particular, highlights
include successful joint bids and joint working, health, flexi-care homes such
as Caroline Sharpe House and Leacroft, and transport funding.
However, the call for evidence did invite submissions on areas where things
are not working so well and feedback received tended to focus on challenges
faced and improvements that could be made. In particular, a number of senior
District councillors expressed strong concerns about the nature of the
relationship and engagement with the District.
We recognise that we at District level have our part to play in ensuring
relations are as strong as possible and are keen to explore with the County
ways practical ways to do this. We therefore make this submission in the spirit
of bringing about improvements to working relationships at County and District
level to the benefit of the District’s residents.
1.1. Areas of strength:
 Co-operation in the area of Health is clearly recognised as a strength
amongst District Councillors and officers. The leadership and support
of Jim McManus, Director of Public Health at HCC, in this area is
particularly appreciated.
 There are examples of good relationships at senior and junior officer
level and attendance of key personal at SADC meetings (e.g. Portfolio
Holder for Transport) is appreciated.
 Where good personal relationships have been established, County and
district work together well.
 Senior level contacts and relationships generally work well in resolving
blockages.
1.2. Areas of weakness:
Many of the issues raised by both officers and District Councillors focus on  A perceived lack of communication with and responsiveness from
some parts of HCC to SADC Officers and Councillors, resulting in
District (and Parish) Councillors feeling sidelined and distanced from
the working of HCC.
 A culture where service provision is not always focused on the
customer.
 Policies and processes that do not always take into account different
expectations at County and District level e.g. poor project management
and business processes to support initiatives and programmes.
1



The current Highways set up has been particularly highlighted as a
concern: it seems under-resourced, not currently meeting the needs of
District Officers, Councillors or District residents.
Concerns that local knowledge and expertise is being undervalued/kept
at arm’s length (e.g. in Thriving Families initiative).
These are all issues that have faced the District Council, particularly in
its relationship with parishes. We would happy to share our experience
of working to change the culture in this area.
1.3. Suggestions for improvement
 Better, earlier and more consistent communication, consultation, data
sharing and dissemination.
 Looking at ways of encouraging joint working e.g. social events, work
shadowing, Service Level Agreements.
 HCC taking up training opportunities with District Councillors and
Officers.
 Valuing the input of non-HCC experts.
 An officer liaison point within HCC to help signpost District councillors
and officers to the right point in the county council.
 Act on the commitment of the Parish charter.
2. How are current relations and working arrangements between the
County Council and the county’s District and Borough councils?
 Current relations and working arrangements between HCC and SADC
were summed up by one respondent as ‘mixed and could be better.’
 Some District Councillors expressed the opinion that relations between
HCC and SADC appear to have deteriorated in recent years, despite their
strong wish that co-operation should be encouraged and expanded.
.
3. What are the Strengths?
 Every respondent could point to some good relationships at junior and/or
senior officer levels between SADC and HCC, with especially strong
relations in Elections. In Parking, officers felt relationships were a strength,
but some District Councillors disagreed.
 There have been some successes in joint bids and joint working (e.g. on
flexi-care homes such as Caroline Sharpe House and Leacroft, and
transport funding).
 Public health joint working in general has been viewed as a strength, with
the continued funding of HWP through the Reducing Health Inequalities
fund also appreciated.
 SADC volunteered to be an early adopter of the Thriving Families
programme because of strong local commitment which has helped the
shaping of the programme locally.
4. What are the Weaknesses?
4.1. Communication between HCC and SADC
2
District Councillors and officers recognise that communication difficulties
between HCC and SADC can be detrimental to good working relations. A
lack of communication and responsiveness from HCC can lead to
procurement exercises suffering and, in exceptional cases, major priority
projects being delayed.
District Councillors and officers both reported difficulty contacting HCC, with
HCC often viewed as remote and un-engaging. District Councillors expressed
great disappointment that HCC Highways officers are not prepared to deal
directly with them.
Specific concerns include –
 Poor communication regarding homeless 16/17 year olds leading to
joint assessments often exceeding the 5 day limit.
 Ineffective communication and information sharing regarding
implementation of the national troubled families’ agenda through the
County’s thriving family’s programme.
 The current links with secondary schools need to be strengthened e.g.
by continuing to improve liaison with the Head Teachers’ Forum .
 There was significant concern about poor communications and
consultation about recent plans to build a new secondary school in the
North of the District
A lack of data sharing and co-ordination between authorities, with data
releases seemingly on an ad hoc basis is another cause of concern.
Specifically:
 More operational data is needed regarding car parks; Variable
Message Signs (VMS) and signage; waste and recycling.
 The Thriving Families Programme needs earlier and regular use of
local intelligence as a critical aspect of data gathering.
4.2. Centralisation of Highways under control of HCC
The centralisation of Highways under the control of HCC has been highlighted
as a particular concern by both District Councillors and officers. In particular:
 Councillors felt strongly that HCC’s decision to devolve a small fraction
of the highways budget to County Divisions was no substitute for
District Councillor involvement in decision making.
 The abolition of Highways JMP was seen as a backward step.
Councillors in particular have strong regrets about its demise.
 Some Councillors felt that adoption of District roads by HCC has been
unacceptably slow.
 With no District HCC Highways officer in situ, those responsible for
District highways lack day-to-day experience of the local highways
network.
 HCC Highways’ officers seem to have insufficient knowledge of District
Planning which has led to one or two significant miscommunications
and issues for SADC.
 Difficulty engaging with Highways
3
emails sent to specific HCC Highway’s officers being ignored,
delaying major priority projects. (For example Section 278 –
Cotlandswick Issue).
o Difficulty contacting Highways Development Management since
the change to only one contact for all major developments
covering three districts. This has led to a noticeable degradation
in responsiveness.
Poor local infrastructure management (e.g. district roads and
footways).
o

4.3. Responsiveness and Customer Service
Respondents suggested that HCC could improve its customer culture,
responding directly to resident queries rather than passing complaints back to
SADC when responsibilities e.g. for repairs lie with HCC. Their service needs
to be more responsive, focusing on needs of their customers and clients.
Some respondents felt a ‘Them and Us’ attitude prevails within some HCC
departments, preventing County and District working together seamlessly for
residents.
4.4. Different ways of operating and HCC’s systems and Policies
Differences between HCC and SADC’s working practices and policies can
negatively impact on good relations. In particular:
 The different ways of operating and perceptions of accountability
between County and District (where it is much more local and acute)
mean that County timelines do not always support District needs. At
District level, Councillors are more hands on, expecting quicker and
more responsive services.
 HCC seem to rely upon the actions of individuals rather than having
robust processes in place.
 Districts need HCC to provide more detailed management and
operational information at District level.
 There are major concerns about HCC project management and its
ability to deliver to time. HCC’s Contract Management structure does
not appear sensitive to projects of particular local impact or priority and
consolidated contract management arrangements can make project
delivery difficult (e.g. too many contractors and subcontractors).
 HCC’s implementation of the Thriving Families Programme has raised
issues including:
o Lack of clarity over HCC’s definition of the role of 'lead agency'
o Lack of attention paid to the professional judgement of the many
local partner representatives involved, thus hindering their
contributions to achieve what is best for each family.
o HCC’s lack of flexibility in applying the programme criteria based
on the local landscape and evidenced need.
o Poor management and chairing of monthly multi-agency
meetings. Appropriate information sharing needs to happen to
let all partners make a professional contribution.
4


o Lack of specific (named and dated) actions being recorded,
tracked and monitored hinders progress checking.
The systems used by HCC do not always support good customer
service:
o ‘Hertsdirect’ is felt to be cumbersome and challenging to use.
o The internet highways faults reporting system excludes those
without internet access.
There are issues with the administration of pensions by LPFA, the HCC
pension contractor (e.g. preparation of annual statement, emails not
responded to, paperwork mislaid), and the SERCO ill health retirement
team (e.g. response times and organisation).
A number of senior District Councillors reported high levels of disappointment
that Highways Officers are not prepared to deal directly with them. They
expressed the view that this undermines good relations with County and goes
against the spirit of the understanding that there would be mutual co-operation
when the District ceded its highways responsibilities.
5. What are the benefits for Hertfordshire residents?
 Achieving more effective working relationships between County and
SADC would allow seamless working and "no wrong door" when
customer issues are being dealt with – i.e. we should be hiding the
wiring.
6. Are there ways in which relationships can be improved and
developed, especially in light of the development of localism within
the county?
 Establish a better protocol for contacting HCC officers or a better list of
who to contact, including an additional Highways Development
Management contact. Re-consider identifying a District liaison officer to
act as a focal point and signpost to other HCC officers and
Departments.
 Ensure a customer-focused attitude is embedded with officers.
 A “working together” Charter, followed by HCC and District Team
building events and social events throughout the year, building on the
Parish charter principles. This sets out how the three tiers of
government should work together and currently works well at Parish
and District level.
 Where relationships need to be more formalised, Service Level
Agreements can be set between HCC and all Districts/Boroughs e.g.
this is a work in progress for Hertfordshire Land charges group.
 Work shadowing or spending a couple of days with opposite numbers
at HCC and SADC.
 HCC County Councillors and Highways officers to take up training with
District Councillors as recommended by Arup Highways Review (e.g.
July 2014 members planning training in St Albans).
 Work to improve programme and project management skills.
 Encourage attendance by County Councillors and officers at
appropriate SADC meetings and ask them to think ‘District level’
5


information/questions rather than just presenting/covering the county
overview – use the local context.
HCC and SADC data and information sharing should be improved so
that it is two way – respecting and valuing the contribution of all local
government officers regardless of tier.
HCC to share examples of where District Councils can change their
behaviour to assist improved delivery of services to the residents of
Hertfordshire.
6