Notes of the Improvement and Efficiency Panel Meeting
Held on 6 March 2015, 10:00am-12:15pm
At St John’s Innovation Centre, Cambridge
Present
First name
Last name
Organisation
Group
Assignation
Dave
Richard
Hodgson
Stay
Bedford BC
Central Beds (Chairman)
Liberal Democrat
Conservative
DH
RS
Hazel
Simmons
Luton BC
Labour
HS
Derek
Blake
South Norfolk
Conservative
DB
Richard
Henry
Stevenage
Labour
SH
Colin
Noble
Suffolk CC
Conservative
CN
Officers in Attendance
First name
Last name
Organisation
Assignation
Cecilia
Tredget
East of England LGA
CT
Eddie
Gibson
East of England LGA
EG
Cinar
Altun
East of England LGA
CA
Gary
Hughes
LGA
GH
Nick
Easton
LGA
NE
Kimberley
Simlinger
Sustainability East
KS
Apologies
First name
Last name
Organisation
Group
Lewis
Herbert
Cambridge
Labour
Mike
Carver
East Herts DC
Conservative
John
Lodge
Essex CC
Conservative
Frances
Button
Hertfordshire CC
Conservative
John
Holdich
Peterborough
Conservative
Terry
Cutmore
Rochford
Conservative
Chris
Siddall
Braintree
Conservative
1. Apologies and Declarations of Interest
1.1. Apologies were noted by Cllr Richard Stay (RS).
1.2. Mayor Dave Hodgson (DH) declared an interest as member of the East of England LGA
Management Committee and Cecilia Tredget (CT) declared an interest as a Board Member of
Sustainability East.
1.3. RS encouraged members to attend the upcoming technology event on 10 March 2015 that is
co-sponsored by the East of England LGA, Capgemini, Microsoft and SBRI with 183 delegates
signed up.
1.4. Cllr Derek Blake (DB) expressed an interest in finding out more about how to bring better
technology to local areas with poor connectivity a major issue in his ward in South Norfolk.
1.5. RS welcomed Cllr Hazel Simmons (HS) to her first meeting and introduced her to the work of
the Improvement and Efficiency Panel and the spokespersons roles.
2. Minutes and Matters Arising
2.1. The panel were advised that Cllr Mike Carver (MC) is standing down from the panel and his
role as spokesperson for Cross Sector Working.
ACTION: The Conservative Group will need to appoint another member and panel members
need to decide on a new spokesperson for cross sector working.
2.2. Members approved the notes of the previous meeting on 28 November 2014.
3. RIEP Legacy Funding and Innovation Programme
3.1. CT explained the history of the RIEP Legacy funding, of which £3.2 million has been retained.
This funding is unlikely to be replaced and members have been encouraging the East of
England LGA to look at an investment model which would sustain the fund for longer.
3.2. Eddie Gibson (EG) provided examples of innovation from the East of England which the East
of England LGA is currently supporting and examples of work that the East of England LGA
could invest in. For example, Herts Building Control which the Association could invest in as
part of a possible investment and payback model. Members noted that the Public Works Loan
Board (PWLB) also provide finance for similar work, but there are clear differentiations
between the Association’s offer and PWLB. PWLB simply provide funds whereas the East of
England LGA is able to provided additional support and specialist knowledge of the sector as
well.
3.3. CT also provided an update on AGILE as a future way of project management and invited
members to approve £30,000 for AGILE pilots. A key feature of the agile methodology is an
understanding of stakeholders and flexibility. Appropriate projects are usually those which
involved multiple councils and are scalable.
3.4. Members were asked to work with the East of England LGA to develop AGILE pilots using
talent bank associates, and requested that one of the spokespersons of the panel to take the
lead.
3.5. It was agreed that spokespersons on Improvement Panel would oversee the RIEP Legacy
funding, but that ideas and innovative projects would be initiated by the East of England Chief
Executives’ Forum. Officers will market the RIEP legacy funding and invite expressions of
interests from councils. Chief Executives will discuss projects to be signed off by members at
Improvement Panel. It was noted by RS that there is a need for greater clarity on the
governance of the fund and that a one page guidance note will be drafted to ensure the
process is clear and transparent.
3.6. ACTION: That up to £30,000 of the RIEP legacy funding is approved for the Agile business
pilots and that Officers to circulate a process for governance of RIEP funding and how
success will be measured.
3.7. CT noted that the East of England LGA has improved its project oversight and ensures that a
member of the Senior Management Team is responsible for each project.
3.8. DB raised the importance of technology in any project that is undertaken and that rural areas
are suffering badly from a lack of connectivity. He added that we should think about how to
influence government to prioritise technological devolution and future of public services. CT
outlined that the lobby role of the upcoming technology event goes toward highlighting this
need and this is supplemented by the work of the European Partnership who are looking at
accessing funding for this.
3.9. DH commented that Bedford Borough is the second most rural part of the country for digital
infrastructure and that the superfast extension programme managed by BT is delayed.
Broadband is a key issue for the borough and some Parishes have invited alternative
providers into the area which has acted as a stimulus to push BT to act quicker.
3.10. DH also queried the following:
i.
Will there be sufficient take up of the RIEP Legacy Fund if councils are expected
to pay it back, particularly as some councils may have their own invest to save
pots?
RS said that not all councils will be in a position to repay. CT suggested that the
funds offered through the investment and payback approach will most likely be
appropriate as a start-up fund involving more than one council working as
partners. In such situations the East of England LGAs involvement can enabled
stalled partnerships to progress.
ii.
Is the proposal to use the Agile methodology ourselves or are we buying a
package?
CT explained that the Association is using the principles of agile and developing it
to use in the local authority context.
iii.
Is there a risk that agile can constrain instead of enable because framework
maybe too restrictive?
CT suggested that framing the agile approach as a product is helpful and likely to
attract more interest.
3.11. Colin Noble (CN) stressed the need for a focus on integrated working and innovation because
that agenda is at the forefront. Also, if the association is not able to secure payback than it
will not be able to secure itself in the longer term and maintain its relevance. This is especially
important going forward with tighter budgets in local government and having an organisation
with some money and products that can support local government is very important to drive
innovation, partnership working and integration.
3.12. CN enquired whether budget reports that include the income for the Talent Bank and the
funding for the REIP Legacy Projects are presented to the Improvement Panel CT said that
Management Committee see these reports but these could also be shown to the
Improvement Panel.
3.13. RS noted the need to ring-fence RIEP funding to ensure there is no confusion with other parts
of the budget.
3.14. Members approved the changes to the use and management of the RIEP Legacy Funding.
3.15. ACTION: Officers to bring a progress report showing the budget and outcomes from the
talent bank/REIP Legacy Funding Projects to the next meeting of the Improvement Panel.
4. LGA Sector Led Improvement Consultation
4.1. Gary Hughes (GH) presented on the work the LGA have done on Sector Led Improvement
(SLI). The slides are attached as Appendix A. LG Inform was particularly noted as a useful tool
and free to use. LG Inform Plus is also being launched by the LGA.
4.2. In terms of working regionally, Gary noted the excellent contribution of peers from the East
to the National SLI projects. 200 peers support the national SLI work from the East.
4.3. RS spoke of how critical SLI is for local government. Members discussed the lack of
understanding of local government from central government and the evident lack of trust.
GH stated that the LGA are working to bridge this lack of understanding and trust. GH also
noted that the Government is supportive of the SLI programme, but the challenge is that the
programme is currently voluntary. A consultation has been launched by the LGA (Tacking
Stock) to assess the current SLI arrangements.
4.4. ACTION: Reminder to be circulated to Chief Executives and Leaders to respond to the
consultation document that has been sent around [Complete, reminder sent on 6 March
2015]
4.5. GH invited members to comment on some of the key consultation questions, including:





Are the principles on which sector led improvement based still the right ones?
Should authorities be expected to have a corporate peer challenge on a regular basis,
say every four years?
Should all peer challenge reports be published?
Should all authorities be expected to produce an action plan following a peer
challenge?
How should the increasing emphasis on place-based working be reflected in sector
led improvement?
4.6. Members discussed the SLI Consultation:
4.7. RS raised that some of the LGA spend on SLI could be spent more locally, and asked that this
be discussed in the future.
4.8. CN noted the importance of all councils responding to the consultation to ensure that it
carries weight with the Government. CN expressed his preference for reports to be published
and that action points should be essential. The universal nature of peer reviews is also an
important element so that individual councils do not feel singled out.
4.9. CT noted that the East of England LGA and the National LGA work well collaboratively at the
moment but the issue is that the SLI programme is not compulsory. If it were compulsory all
councils would have a review every 3-4 years and nobody would be singled out for attention.
4.10. DH agreed that peer reviews should be published and that there should be an action plan
but that if the LGA forces makes it compulsory then you remove the devolved element of
the programme. If councils are not undertaking a review then they should expect serious
questions about this. NE agreed with DH and said that we need to shift the expectation so
that councils are expected to have a peer review.
4.11. Hazel Simmons (HS) praised the peer review process and agreed that peer reviews should
be promoted as best practice and that people will engaged with the process better if it is
voluntary. She stated that reports and action plans should be published and that SLI
programme should be aligned with local place based working.
4.12. RS stressed that place based working is really important and stressed that place based
arrangements and solutions for the East are key to shaping devolution discussions.
4.13. CT added that there is a need to publish reports but that many of the most important
discussions take place in informal conversations which enable the local government family
to act as a critical friend.
4.14. ACTION : Send a response to the SLI Consultation on behalf of the Improvement Panel
based on discussion at meeting [Complete – copy attached as Appendix B]
5. Member Updates
5.1. Cllr Button and Cllr Carver both sent apologies. CT provided a brief update on a number of
efficiency projects in the East of England.
5.2. ACTION: Spokespersons to be briefed before the meetings and a written update to be
provided to the panel if members are unable to attend.
5.3. ACTION: Management Committee to be asked to consider a longer tenure for the panel
members.
6. EU Sustainable Development Mapping
6.1. CT introduced the background to the presentation by Kimberly Simlinger (KM) from
Sustainability East. CT highlighted that the work done on this project had enabled Essex CC
to access EU funding more strategically.
6.2. KS presented on making the most of EU funding in her role as Knowledge Transfer Executive
at Sustainability East. The slides are attached as Appendix C.
6.3. KM noted in particular that Essex provided £20k funding which was matched by ERDF for the
project. The project mapped the sustainable development elements of the Essex
Commissioning Strategies with EU targets/ambitions. The principles that KM has developed
have been adopted by New Anglia LEP and by GCGP LEP. She has also explored overlaps and
based on the outcomes of the mapping exercise was able to propose four project themes. Of
the four themes she proposed, the Essex CC have chosen to pursue a project on Energy
Efficiency Education. This project was developed and matched with the most appropriate EU
funding opportunity. If successful the project will received £1m for this local initiative.
6.4. This mapping process can be replicated for other opportunities.
6.5. CT suggested that this is something that can be replicated and we should look at ways that
councils can use this. This is a way to avoid just following the funding because it looks at
existing corporate objectives and how these can be aligned with EU funding opportunities.
6.6. ACTION: Officers to provide a briefing note on the work undertaken by Sustainability East
and how this can benefit member councils - for circulation to leaders and chief executives.
7. Date of Next Meeting and Forward Agenda
7.1. The next meeting will be on 12 June 2015 at 10:00 -12:30 at SJIC, Cambridge
(Short Business Meeting + Workshop)