Agenda item

Report of the Town Clerk.

The Sub-Committee received a Report of the Head of Corporate Strategy & Performance.

Members thanked the Head of Corporate Strategy & Performance for the update and provided feedback on the high-level summary business plan, most notably;

·         Officers should review the template two-pager to include wording that would better serve to ‘force’ debate at Committees as to what to prioritise. The Chairman added that it was critical that, as pressures on the Corporation’s finances began to intensify due to the large projects coming on stream, Members confronted the need to make choices; any wording needed to express ‘if you do this, this is what you’ll achieve in terms of outcomes’ and offer real choices not “shroud waving”.

The proposed new cycle in 2020, where scrutiny sessions would take place after Policy & Resources’ confirmation of Members’ priorities, would provide time for any final changes to the departmental high-level summary Business Plans to be made ahead of their submission to Committees for approval; this, Members noted, was a positive step, but it needed Chief Officers to be proactive in ensuring that choices about prioritisation were presented for Members consideration. The Deputy Chairman added that the Sub-Committee does not set the Corporation’s priorities, but it does monitor how priorities are being met.

·         Officers needed to more clearly distinguish and separate out areas where debate is needed

·         Highlight changes from the previous year; the business plan needed to be a living document, with its “evolution” transparently presented to officers and Members alike.

·         Members noted that some departments (e.g. CCS) won’t have much room for debate as priority, clearly, follows risk. Others will need to be longer, so a one size-fits-all approach should be avoided.

·         The Deputy Chairman was concerned that reference to the Capital Budget was missing; capital bids needed to be aligned with the business and corporate plan cycles.   

In conclusion, Members were not yet fully convinced by the proposals. The two-pager, at least in its current state, was “too flat” and didn’t do enough to drive choices. In light of the Fundamental Review, Chief Officers had a real challenge here and it was critical that this process was robust and added real value to both officers and Members. The Head of Corporate Strategy & Performance would take these thoughts away and come back with amended proposals to the Chairman via email before submitting a further Report to Members.  

RESOLVED – that the Sub-Committee noted the Report