LGA Corporate Peer Challenge: London Borough of Islington

Corporate Peer Challenge (CPC) is a highly valued improvement and assurance tool that is delivered by the sector for the sector. It involves a team of senior local government councillors and officers undertaking a comprehensive review of key finance, performance and governance information and then spending four days at the London Borough of Islington to provide robust, strategic, and credible challenge and support.

CPC forms a key part of the improvement and assurance framework for local government. It is underpinned by the principles of Sector-led Improvement (SLI) put in place by councils and the Local Government Association (LGA) to support continuous improvement and assurance across the sector. These state that local authorities are: Responsible for their own performance, Accountable locally not nationally and have a collective responsibility for the performance of the sector.

CPC assists councils in meeting part of their Best Value duty, with the UK Government expecting all local authorities to have a CPC at least every five years.

Peers remain at the heart of the peer challenge process and provide a ‘practitioner perspective’ and ‘critical friend’ challenge.

This report outlines the key findings of the peer team and the recommendations that the council are required to action.

Islington Council has a distinctive culture, clear ambition and pride in its place. Members and officers have a strong commitment to their community, with a shared and driving focus on tackling inequality in the borough.

Islington is a well-resourced authority and a comparatively high spender in some areas. The council has managed and targeted its money effectively to ensure the delivery of high-quality services with a clear resident focus and has achieved outstanding judgements in its children’s and youth justice services. The council has worked hard to maintain, and continue to develop, preventative and early intervention services that are the envy of other councils.

As London’s second largest council landlord, Islington has worked through a programme of improvement to address a backlog of housing complaints and received an indicative C2 judgement from the Regulator of Social Housing in a pilot inspection. The council is leading impressive work on rough sleeping, temporary accommodation and Right to Buy buy back. It also has an ambitious programme to deliver 750 new council homes.

The council has been working on a major scheme to redevelop the Finsbury Leisure Centre site over recent years. Given the changed financial context since the project was originally conceived and high risk associated with this type of major capital investment, the peer team would encourage the council to undertake an external review of the returns expected, and alternative option returns, as part of its ongoing assurance of the project. (Since the peer team’s visit, the council has withdrawn the plans to redevelop the site.) More widely, the council has an ambitious Capital Programme which could deliver many good outcomes for residents. Steps have already been taken to strengthen delivery capacity and governance around the capital programme; this could be further enhanced through a consistent gateway and assessment criteria for capital investment decisions.

The council has shown a preference for direct delivery and in-sourcing (in line with its Progressive Procurement Strategy), with a perception both internally and among partners of a paternalistic organisation. There is significant longevity and low turnover amongst the organisation’s large workforce; while this is a strength in terms of staff’s knowledge of their area and the organisation, it also means Islington needs to ensure it creates opportunities for learning and innovation, particularly in corporate services.

There have been a number of recent changes at senior level within the council. Politically, a new leader was elected in November, while managerially, a new chief executive, monitoring officer and three corporate directors have been permanently appointed within the last eighteen months. The new leader and chief executive have established a positive and collaborative working relationship.

Following a decade with a very small number of opposition councillors, the council now has an opposition group of seven. It is recognised that the council has had to adapt to this change: it should now aim to complete and implement its review of the support available to the ruling and opposition groups as soon as possible. Culturally, there is a widely held view that Islington is a highly political and strongly member-led council, but that at times this has seen members stray into operational business. It is also clear that member frustration about responses to member enquiries and complaints handling – in short, whether the council is genuinely operating in a ‘resident first’ way – have led to tensions between members and officers. This has led to a suggestion that officers may be less willing to provide appropriate challenge when required.

The council’s member-officer protocol is being reviewed as part of a much-needed comprehensive review of the council’s constitution: the first full review in twenty-two years. There is an opportunity through this to ensure there is greater clarity of the different roles within the organisation, including appropriate boundaries between members and officers. The objective should be for Islington to be able to draw on overarching governance mechanisms rather than rely on relationships, so that governance is fit for purpose as the council approaches a more challenging future.

Financially, Islington has prioritised its resources to protect services. While the council has worked through a difficult programme of school reorganisation, there is a sense of the council to date having had to take fewer tough decisions than other councils have needed to, in part because it has worked hard to maintain resourcing for key services. The financial outlook for all councils means that this will now change; like others, to operate within its financial constraints Islington will need to stop doing some things it currently does and become a smaller organisation. To provide the strategic leadership required to steer the organisation through this, the peer team felt Islington’s executive and Corporate Management Team (CMT) should create more dedicated time for strategy and planning discussions, separately to their monthly business meeting. The executive / CMT away day which took place a few days after the CPC was a good example of doing this, providing scope to finalise a clear and deliverable timetable for the 2026/27 business and budget setting process, which the peer team recommends should start earlier in the year and incorporate time upfront to discuss changes and constraints with members.

While it may be challenging for the council to make some of the changes required in the coming months and years, with a need for clear member ownership of this, this shift represents a significant opportunity. Islington has a host of willing partners keen to engage based upon ‘what we can do together’, rather than the approach some partners perceive from the council of ‘this is what you should do for us.’ Islington is fortunate to have an impressive voluntary and community sector, as well as business, higher and further education, cultural and sporting assets it could work with more collaboratively and effectively, including in support of the local growth agenda.

Linked to strengthening engagement is a need for a reset on Islington’s story and brand. The peer team heard that the council has multiple strategies, which tend to be directorate focused and not always joined up (supporting the suggestion the peer team heard that Islington can operate in a siloed way) or underpinned by clear delivery plans or linked to budget plans. There is work to do, supported by strengthened corporate services, to draw these together and clarify Islington’s narrative. The current work on the council’s brand is addressing this and will be followed by a refresh of Islington’s vision and corporate plan after the 2026 election. The council should ensure it takes forward this work with the key partners identified as part of the planned stakeholder engagement review, as well as with residents.

Organisationally, Islington is at the start of its next change journey. During the peer challenge, some council staff expressed the view that the council doesn’t readily embrace change, and therefore, that there is a risk that the expectation to drive change is too heavily invested in the new chief executive. There is a need for a refreshed and clear change narrative for the council and ownership of this across the whole executive, CMT and wider organisation. Recent external recommendations on the council’s change model provide a basis from which it can move forward and should be swiftly implemented, supported by work to develop a new target operating model for the council following a review of existing staff layers and spans. The council should draw on its significant but disaggregated capacity, and build on its strong services and solid finances, to move forward at pace and with strengthened corporate grip.

The following are the peer team’s key recommendations to the council:

3.1 The council should urgently set a business and budget planning timetable which enables challenge, clear prioritisation of delivery and sufficient time to identify costed savings and address the budget gap.

The council should quickly clarify the timetable and process for 2026/27 budget setting and business planning. This should build in sufficient time for continued early member engagement and help identify specific costed savings backed by a delivery plan.

3.2 Maintain the focus on the ‘golden triangle’ of the governance statutory officers and ensure a clear line of sight from the CEX to the MO.

The chief executive, monitoring officer and section 151 officer meet monthly. With an ongoing focus on strengthening the council’s governance, the council should satisfy itself that all relevant arrangements are in line with the Code of Practice on Good Governance for Local Authority Statutory Officers.

3.3 Strengthen the role of the whole executive, in conjunction with CMT, to act as the strategic leadership of the council, drive the business plan and budget with collective accountability. Ensure executive / CMT have sufficient time together to do this.

The executive will need to visibly provide the leadership and direction required in the challenging times ahead, with clear ownership and oversight of the budget, refreshed corporate / delivery plan and change programme. Dedicated sessions separate to the more transactional business focus of Joint Board will help to shape this.

3.4 As part of the review of the constitution, ensure clarity on the respective roles and responsibilities of members / officers, scrutiny and audit committees to avoid overlap

Islington should work quickly to complete the first full review of its constitution in more than twenty years. With the council having experienced some blurred lines in the roles of members and officers, and between different committees and groups, the review should focus on ensuring that Islington is operating in line with established norms of governance and that all members and officers are clear about what this looks like.

3.5 Improve and embed the new corporate approach to complaints and member enquiries. Clarify the structures in place to support different political groups

Ongoing issues in the timeliness and quality of responses to member enquiries and complaints have been a source of tension in the council. It is important that there is an urgent focus on getting this right and making the new system work more effectively. The review of the current support provided to the Labour group, and proposals for a political assistant for each group, should be quickly progressed.

3.6 Led corporately, develop a clearer narrative, stronger culture and a more collaborative approach to working with local businesses, HFE, cultural and sporting institutions and the VCS. Build on the real opportunities Islington has.

Islington is fortunate to have an impressive array of partners within the borough but relationships and opportunities need to be maximised. The council should use its brand review, stakeholder engagement review and change programme to reset the way it works with partners.

3.7 Develop a clearer gateway / assessment criteria for capital investment, supported by executive and CMT.

The council has a new strategic asset plan; whilst this begins to set out a framework for decision making, the Capital and Asset Strategic Board needs to have clear criteria to inform decision making that fits with the council’s change programme and secures savings.

3.8 Undertake an externally supported review and risk assessment of the Finsbury Leisure scheme to assure and inform decision making.

Finsbury Leisure is an ambitious but high-risk scheme which has been under consideration for several years. An external review of the financial feasibility of the project, the council’s capacity to deliver it and achieve its objectives, against all alternatives for return will help to inform the council’s decision making on the scheme.

3.9 Develop and define a coherent organisation-wide change programme underpinned by clear plans and savings and a narrative that helps prepare members and the workforce.

Navigating a more financially challenged environment in the years to come will require change; along with others, the council should expect to do less, operate differently, and with fewer staff. The council should therefore develop a clear delivery plan for all savings, supported by a clear narrative on why change is required and what it will mean.

3.10 Implement a new target operating model in the context of recent external recommendations made to support the wider change programme.

The recommendations made recently by an external consultancy are tailored to the diffuse nature of Islington’s existing change capability and intended to develop an enabling, corporate core to coordinate change across the organisation. The council should move to implement these recommendations, informed by a layers and spans review that assesses how critical corporate capability could be brought together more coherently and enabling the council to fully utilise its significant leadership capacity.

The peer team

Peer challenges are delivered by experienced elected member and officer peers. The make-up of the peer team reflected the focus of the peer challenge and peers were selected by the LGA on the basis of their relevant expertise. The peers were:

• Robin Tuddenham, chief executive, Calderdale Council
• Cllr Shantanu Rajawat, leader, LB Hounslow
• Cllr Sue Shanks, Brighton and Hove City Council
• Jess Crowe, director of culture, strategy and engagement, LB Haringey
• Michael Hudson, executive director of resources and finance, Cambridgeshire County Council
• Elaine Jackson, assistant chief executive, LB Croydon
• Judah Bajela, national management trainee, LB Brent Council
• Ellie Greenwood, peer challenge manager, Local Government Association

Scope and focus

The peer team considered the following five themes which form the core components of all Corporate Peer Challenges. These areas are critical to councils’ performance and improvement.

1. Local priorities and outcomes - are the council’s priorities clear and informed by the local context? Is the council delivering effectively on its priorities? Is there an organisational-wide approach to continuous improvement, with frequent monitoring, reporting on and updating of performance and improvement plans?
2. Organisational and place leadership - does the council provide effective local leadership? Are there good relationships with partner organisations and local communities?
3. Governance and culture - Are there clear and robust governance arrangements? Is there a culture of challenge and scrutiny?
4. Financial planning and management - Does the council have a grip on its current financial position? Does the council have a strategy and a plan to address its financial challenges? What is the relative financial resilience of the council like?
5. Capacity for improvement - Is the organisation able to bring about the improvements it needs, including delivering on locally identified priorities? Does the council have the capacity to improve?

As part of the five core elements outlined above, every Corporate Peer Challenge includes a strong focus on financial sustainability, performance, governance, and assurance.

In addition to these themes, the council asked the peer team to provide feedback on its change / transformation capability.

The peer challenge process

Peer challenges are improvement focused; it is important to stress that this was not an inspection. The process is not designed to provide an in-depth or technical assessment of plans and proposals. The peer team used their experience and knowledge of local government to reflect on the information presented to them by people they met, things they saw and material that they read.

The peer team prepared by reviewing a range of documents and information in order to ensure they were familiar with the council and the challenges it is facing. This included a position statement prepared by the council in advance of the peer team’s time on site. This provided a clear steer to the peer team on the local context at Islington and what the peer team should focus on. It also included a comprehensive LGA Finance briefing (prepared using public reports from the council’s website) and an LGA performance report outlining benchmarking data for the council across a range of metrics. The latter was produced using the LGA’s local area benchmarking tool called LG Inform.

The peer team then spent four days onsite at Islington, during which they:

• Gathered evidence, information, and views from more than 40 meetings, in addition to further research and reading.
• Spoke to around 100 people including a range of council staff together with members and external stakeholders.

This report provides a summary of the peer team’s findings. In presenting feedback, they have done so as fellow local government officers and members.

About Islington

Islington is a small, inner-London borough; stretching from the edge of the City of London to the London zone 2/3 boundary, north of Arsenal FC’s Emirates Stadium, it totals less than six square miles but comprises several different neighbourhoods with specific identities. Islington is home to around 225,000 people, making it the second most densely populated borough in London. Typically for an inner London borough, Islington is extremely diverse, with 60 per cent of the population non-white British and over 40 per cent not born in England: Spanish is the most spoken language for adults after English, with Somali for children. It is a younger borough than the London average, with 38 per cent of the population aged 20-35.

In common with other parts of London, while there is significant affluence in parts of Islington, there is also significant deprivation. Inequalities are stark, with multi-million-pound properties neighbouring the council’s own estates, and a significant gap in healthy life expectancy between different parts of the borough (particularly for males)

The council’s priorities

There is a strong sense of the council, members and staff knowing their area and of their commitment to the borough. Members are seen as activists who are rooted in their communities and staff turnover is low. The council has an ambition to align this local knowledge with a data- and evidence-led approach across the organisation. Although levels of data maturity across the council are mixed, there are examples of good practice and a shared willingness to progress this (see section five).

Islington has a clear mission to tackle the inequalities within the borough; staff described a ‘genuine drive to tackle inequality and make things fairer – it drives everything we do and gets you up in the morning.’

The council’s vision is set out in its Islington Together 2030 Plan, developed in 2022. The plan is centred on five missions: child friendly, community wealth building, empowering people, a safe place to call home and greener, healthier. The council has recently produced a 2024-26 delivery plan intended to bring more clarity about the practical steps it is taking in support of its missions. This was consciously developed as a single page plan summarising key actions against each mission and how the council is changing the way it works, explicitly linked with its CARE (collaborative, ambitious, resourceful, empowering) values.

The peer team heard that the delivery plan has been successful in providing this greater clarity. However, there is further work to do on how the full vision and missions, the ‘for a more equal future’ strapline, the separate challenging inequalities strategy, and CARE values all intersect, what specifically is being delivered and how to communicate this.

The council highlighted work to look at its overarching ‘brand’/ story, flagging concern at the number of sub-brands (around 40-50) in use across the council. The peer team found that the council has a multitude of strategies, often directorate led and not joined up – indicative of a tendency to ‘put things in a document’ with ‘a strategy for every department’ not underpinned by financial implications, delivery plans or risks.

The communications work underway will help clarify Islington’s brand and enable it to better communicate the local place and council story; this should include being more willing to promote the good work that the council does. This will help inform the planned refresh of the council vision and delivery plan following the 2026 election. Going forward, the council should ensure that where new strategies and plans are necessary, they are aligned to the outcomes of the brand work, and include greater identification of financial implications, risks and wider delivery.

Performance

The peer team heard that Islington is ‘doing solidly well’ and ‘holds its own, does a good job and is well respected.’ The council delivers good quality services for its residents, with above average performance on many metrics indicated in its LG Inform CPC report. This is an important foundation as the council moves into a more challenging financial and service delivery environment, and not one that all councils have the benefit of, and should give the council confidence to take opportunities to be pioneering in its future work.

Islington has recently retained its previous outstanding grade for children’s services, with the council judged outstanding across all four areas of focus. Inspectors noted that ‘children’s experiences are at the heart of the local authority’s thinking’ and that the council’s work is ‘transforming children’s lives.’ The council’s youth justice service was also rated outstanding in August 2024, having been turned around from being in special measures ten years previously. This has helped to halve the number of under-18s entering the justice system; during their visit, the peer team heard about the good work the council is doing with young people, in partnership with its youth ambassadors, the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime (MoPAC) and the London Violence Reduction Unit.

On housing, as the second biggest council landlord in the capital, Islington is responsible for over 25,000 tenanted and 10,700 leasehold properties, making it a key player in the local housing market. While the council was the subject of a Housing Ombudsman report on its landlord / complaints handling services, its commitment to self-improvement and tackling the issues was recognised following a monitoring period. The peer team heard of innovative work using sensors to help tackle damp and mould issues; in a pilot inspection by the Regulator of Social Housing, the council was awarded an indicative C2 rating, the second highest.

Islington is facing a growing challenge with demand for temporary accommodation, although the financial pressures arising from this are lower than in other London boroughs. Having successfully leveraged £89.572m external funding from MHCLG, the Council is seen to be leading the way in terms of buying back local former right to buy properties, with 568 properties already purchased and a further 80 due by March 2025.

The council also has a strong story to tell on rough sleeping. Having invested in additional spaces and accommodation, Islington has one of the lowest numbers of rough sleepers in London – thirteen at the time of the peer team’s visit – and works hard to ensure the vast majority of rough sleepers do not spend a second night on the streets. Intensive support is provided to assist former rough sleepers to retain their tenancies. Staff cited a genuine sense that the council cares about homeless people, and the effort and resources put into this area.

The council has successfully implemented seven low traffic neighbourhoods and been recognised as the top inner-London borough for healthy streets four years in a row. The council is now focusing on creating ‘liveable neighbourhoods’ that are greener, healthier, safer and build the borough’s resilience to climate change.

On adult social care, the council supports around 4,600 local residents annually: Islington has one of the highest rates of income deprivation among pensioners in the country and is a high spender on adult social care. The council performs above or in line with the London average in eighteen of the twenty one ASCOF indicators, and is currently awaiting the outcome of its recent CQC inspection.

The council can highlight good case studies of focusing on early intervention and preventative work across Islington, including with partners, for example in the youth justice service and the Start Well programme. The council has invested in front door services through its three new access hubs. Staff recognise that ‘we are lucky in Islington to have the breadth of early intervention services [we do]..others are blown away by it.’ However, there is also an understanding that ‘we are doing things that others stopped years ago’ and that there will be a need for ‘honest conversations’ alongside plans to shift more power to communities.

Performance management

The council has recently developed a new business planning and performance management framework, intended to standardise previously inconsistent approaches to business planning. This is being rolled out for 2025/26, with all plans expected to be complete by March 2025, and will require embedding across the council. The peer team observed that while the business planning document will help identify the alignment between directorate service plans and the council’s overarching missions, and capture some information about directorate change plans, there could be greater alignment with the budget planning process. As the new framework is further developed, the council should focus on making clearer links between budget / business planning, and between budget and performance outcomes / reporting.

Performance reports are taken to CMT and executive on a quarterly basis as well as to scrutiny; adult social care outcomes framework data held by the service is also reported to scrutiny on a quarterly basis. The chief executive has introduced bi-monthly finance and performance meetings with each directorate management team to ensure a clearer focus on these issues.

At individual level, performance management is based on monthly check-ins between staff and managers and a quarterly RAG rating on performance. Although this is a relatively new system, staff survey results show that the system is well-embedded with 88 per cent of staff reporting that they regularly have checks in with their manager. Although the peer team heard there may be more to do to ensure check in discussions are consistently robust, staff survey results indicate an impressive fifteen per cent jump, to 68 per cent, in the number of staff agreeing that their line manager deals effectively with poor performance.

EDI

Making Islington fairer and ensuring everyone has access to the same opportunities whatever their background or situation, is central to the council’s overall vision. The council’s Challenging Inequality, Racism and Injustice Strategy was originally developed in 2020 and set out the council’s initial commitments / equality objectives in three distinct areas: Islington as an employer (covered separately in this report), Islington as a strategic leader and Islington as a service provider. A cross-council Challenging Inequality Board provides a forum for discussing equalities issues.

A summer 2024 report to the executive set out plans to review the Challenging Inequality programme to identify progress to date, appropriate next steps and how the programme is integrated into council’s wider mission work. The council is also planning to benchmark itself against the Equality Framework for Local Government and work towards Achievement of Unison’s Anti-Racist Charter.

For many years, Islington has led the network of councils seeking to improve systems for supporting people with no recourse to public funds. In 2023, the council was awarded ‘Borough of Sanctuary’ status. As part of its five key commitments to make Islington a place where migrants, refugees and people seeking asylum are welcomed and can thrive, the council has pledged to share decision making power with residents with lived experience of seeking sanctuary. Through the Islington Welcomes Participatory Grant-making Panel, the council is currently working with sixteen residents to decide how the council will allocate £500,000 in funding.

Alongside developing a support scheme most suited to the needs of those who will access it, the approach is empowering people who have previously felt powerless. Panel members contrasted their experience in Islington with elsewhere, noting that ‘Islington is a role model for other councils’ and that ‘one of the best things about Islington Council is that they never choose by colour, they choose by humanity.’

Internal change

There has been significant senior change within the council over the past eighteen months. 

Managerially, the council appointed a new monitoring officer in late 2023 and two corporate directors at the end of 2024, with the new chief executive having taken up the position in January 2024; a new corporate director for environment and climate change started in March 2025. The new chief executive is highly regarded, well-respected both internally and by partners, and has a real mandate to lead change within the organisation and beyond. However, there is a risk of the change agenda being too closely invested with the chief executive alone. The council needs to guard against over reliance on, and over burdening, a single officer on an issue that is the collective responsibility of the whole senior leadership and organisation more widely and should ensure it is fully utilising its significant leadership capacity.

Politically, a new council leader was elected in November 2024 following the resignation of the previous leader. Born and bred in the borough, this is seen as a ‘great moment for the new leader to step forward and tell her story for the future of Islington.’ The executive will have a new lead member for resources from May 2025 when the current lead stands down, ahead of stepping down from the council at the May 2026 elections.

The new leader and chief executive have quickly established a positive working relationship. Relationships between the wider executive and CMT also appear constructive: they meet monthly in Joint Board meetings largely focused on Cabinet business, and there are monthly update meetings between portfolio leads and corporate directors. The leader chairs a fortnightly strategic meeting with the chief executive and relevant officers to discuss emerging issues.

The peer team heard examples of how Joint Board has been used to discuss contentious issues (for example, liveable neighbourhoods) but felt that, with the financial challenges and changes ahead, the executive and CMT needs to spend more time together to ensure shared strategic focus, address challenges and not just deal with transactional business.

Communications

The council’s communications function was restructured in 2023; internal communications and networks have since been strengthened. This has been well received by staff at all levels. The council has a new intranet, and all members of staff have a device from which they can access this. The chief executive hosts monthly meet-ups (online briefings) and posts a weekly blog, while in September 2024, more than 2,000 staff came together for the first all colleague event in over five years focused on ‘purpose into action’. Colleague awards have been revamped and internal email updates improved.

A new Directors Forum has been established. The peer team heard that the forum provides an opportunity for cross-organisational discussions on important issues, which may not have taken place previously, and that it is helping to build networks across the organisation and break down siloed working.

Externally, there has been a focus on taking a more strategic communications approach linked to the council’s missions, with communications planned by the corporate communications function rather than driven by service requests. The council is developing an annual campaigns plan for the new financial year.

As noted in the previous section the council has launched work to review its existing brands and sub-brands to create a more coherent narrative of the council’s missions. Alongside this, the council is planning work to map out its key stakeholders and current engagement with them with a view to improving communication and strengthening its role as place leader and convenor.

Partnership working

The peer team heard that positive partnership working between frontline staff from the council and its partners is having a demonstrable impact on outcomes. Examples include: collaborative working between the council, London Fire Brigade (LFB) and the NHS to deal with complex cases though the Hoarders Panel; highly praised engagement on emergency planning and ‘second to none’ support for the Borough Resilience Forum; the Startwell service, a front door for children with social and emotional needs which is fully integrated with health services; work with MoPAC and the London Violence Reduction Unit on youth services; and the local Clear, Hold, Build approach ‘Love Islington’ helping to reduce crime.

There was positive feedback from the council’s statutory partners about the work of the council, and a sense of Islington, which previously ‘hasn’t been seen as a go to place for collaboration in London’ becoming more active in sub-regional and national work. The chief executive has recently taken on the local authority chief executive lead role for the North Central London ICB. Health partners were complimentary about the work undertaken to support the joint agenda, with the chief executive perceived to be a partner that senior health colleagues would go to, value and respect. The council is also leading sub-regional work on housing and children’s placements and participating in an MHCLG working group on modernising ways of work.

There is recognition and appreciation within the VCS that Islington has maintained VCS funding and a grants programme when other councils have cut them. There are good examples of the council working effectively with the VCS, for example a Carers’ Strategy which was co-designed with Age UK, and a community group being supported to move into a multi-use community centre.

Alongside this, there are also examples of genuine resident and tenant involvement in the issues affecting their lives. As well as the Borough of Sanctuary participatory grant making approach, the council has led work to ensure more representative tenants and residents associations (TRAs); these offer a range of ways for residents to get involved including surveys, estate drop ins, forums, tenant representatives on the housing scrutiny committee.

Issues to think about

There is scope for Islington to build on its effective operational working with partners by strengthening strategic relationships and enhancing its place leadership role.

There is a clear appetite within the VCS for a reset of its relationship with the council, reflected in the sector’s desire for a review of the council / VCS Compact. The peer team heard a desire for a more equal and collaborative relationship, and a view that a council perceived as paternalistic too often starts from the premise of ‘this is what you should do for us’ rather than ‘how we can work together.’ The council’s access hubs, a seemingly impressive approach to providing a front door and navigational support to all council services, were cited as a project where there were missed opportunities to work more collaboratively with the VCS from the outset.

There were similar frustrations among other partners. Islington is fortunate to have extensive social, cultural, knowledge and economic capital to draw on, with a broad mix of higher and further education, business, cultural and sporting institutions situated within the borough and potentially able to lead on health, EDI and other work. However, it appeared to the peer team that these relationships and opportunities are not being maximised, and the council’s interactions with key partners were too often purely transactional.

The council’s new leadership has recognised this gap, with a review of stakeholder engagement and communications planned for this year; the peer team welcomes that this will take place. With a review of the council’s brand and narrative, its approach to stakeholder engagement and a post-election review of the council’s vision and delivery plan, this is a pivotal point for the council to be working more collaboratively with its partners, ensuring they are engaged in developing and communicating a vision for the future of the borough and how they will collectively support it. As the council has to assess what it currently provides as part of its change programme, this is an opportune moment for the council to work more effectively with other system and place leaders to deliver shared ambitions for Islington.

A political and member led council

In line with the area’s political reputation nationally, Islington is seen as ‘highly political’ with a campaigning culture. Members cited the council’s work on free school meals (which predated the London-wide offer), mental health and reforms to Right to Buy as areas where the council has played a leading role on national issues.

After a period of very small numbers of opposition councillors, Islington now has a seven strong opposition group, following the coming together of three Green Party councillors and four independents. It is recognised that the council has had to adapt to this change, which has highlighted how a ‘very relational’ organisation has sometimes relied too much on relationships rather than clear and transparent processes.

Backbench members receive assistance with casework and administration from the Mayor and Backbench Support Office, which was highly praised by ward members. In terms of political support, the Green / Independent group’s desire for a political assistant has not yet been progressed pending recruitment to the head of the leader’s office and a review of the comparative roles in that office. The council should seek to progress this as soon as possible to ensure appropriate support is in place for the opposition.

Members are well-supported through the council’s member development programme. Framed by an overarching strategy and member steering group, member development is supported by a healthy £37,000 budget with a member development manager predominantly focusing on this area. The council offers a comprehensive programme of training to members; as in other councils, ensuring consistent take up of the offer can be a challenge given the competing demands on members, but the recent return to designating certain training as ‘mandatory’ is seen as helpful.

The council is seen as strongly member-led; members are very empowered, highly active and visible - ‘not just the people who report potholes.’ However, there are concerns that this can lead members to stray into operational matters. Examples include the operation of joint member and officer boards blurring the lines of decision making, the Audit and Risk Committee wanting to review individual officer pay awards, and scrutiny committees seeking information they are not entitled to.

The peer team heard that on occasion, largely borne out of frustration with issues in the council’s handling of member enquiries and complaints, and the perception of the council failing to act in a ‘resident first’ way, there have been instances of more junior officers feeling inappropriately challenged by members. While these have not been code of conduct issues, there is risk that this may make some officers less willing to provide appropriate challenge back to members when necessary.

Across members and officers, there is recognition that the new iCasework system for managing member enquiries has not yet resolved members’ concerns, and that there is more to do for the organisation to ensure quality, timely and joined up responses. The council should continue to focus on this to help address a source of tension in member / officer relationships.

Strengthening governance

The council should finalise a refreshed member / officer protocol explicitly linked to the CARE values. The protocol is currently being reviewed as part of a review of the constitution, the first full review in twenty-two years. Positively, this work is being led by a constitutional working group involving members from the majority and opposition groups. This work has included a review of existing board structures: the peer team was pleased to hear there is a focus on phasing out the remaining joint member / officer boards.

After such a long time with only minor tweaks to the Constitution, there is a pressing need to expedite the review to ensure the council’s governance is fit for purpose and meets the current needs of the organisation.

As noted, the peer team heard that the council is highly relational and, in part due to the longevity of staff and members, often reliant on relationships rather than overarching governance mechanisms and processes.

The peer team heard that a lack of corporate processes across the council can lead directorates to create their own processes, leading to inconsistency across different areas. In key areas, work is underway to clarify organisation wide processes and ensure these are adhered to. One example is recent work to improve the process of taking reports through informal clearance ahead of formal meeting papers being dispatched. The democratic services team are now using Mod.Gov to help automate the process to try and reduce the significant time that was being taken for clearance. The new monitoring officer has also been providing guidance on the appropriate use of urgency decisions.

The ‘golden triangle’ of the chief executive, section 151 officer and monitoring officer, meets monthly; additionally, there are twice yearly meetings bringing together the council’s office senior statutory officers. This dialogue is important and should be maintained, but the peer team also encourages the council to benchmark itself against the CIPFA, Solace and Lawyers in Local Government Code of Practice on Good Governance for Local Authority Statutory Officers. This emphasises the importance of each of the chief executive, section 151 and monitoring officer being able to constructively challenge each other, and states that ‘The chief finance officer and monitoring officer should have a clear and direct relationship to the head of paid service (chief executive), normally through line management or other equivalent arrangement.’

The council has set up new groups to promote good governance. The Strategic Risk and Assurance Group, comprising finance leads, the monitoring officer, HR, internal audit, democratic services and procurement, is providing oversight on governance and key corporate health issues and believed to be working well. Separately, the Workforce Controls Panel is reviewing proposals for recruitment of workers in specific categories (higher cost agency workers, extension of existing higher cost staff, workers outside of IR35 etc).

The council publishes a comprehensive Annual Governance Statement, with a detailed commentary on the council’s governance and issues highlighted in previous years. The AGS also includes a breakdown of actions / progress updates on governance issues monitored during the current year and emerging for the following year, with target dates and responsible officers highlighted.

Scrutiny

As part of the review of the constitution, the council has reconfigured its scrutiny structures; phase two of the review will look at the culture around scrutiny and how the council can be more proactive in engaging partners and residents. Scrutiny in Islington is considered to be fairly traditional although there are examples of task and finish work being undertaken by some committees, for example the Environment Scrutiny Panel’s work on the Cleaner, Greener Streets Plan. The planned second phase of the scrutiny review should consider how it can be more impactful, such as through pre-decision scrutiny and more consistent use of task and finish groups.

The peer team heard feedback that officers are sometimes nervous about attending scrutiny meetings, in part due to the council’s practice of allowing open questions from the public if time allows in public meetings. At public meetings, an hour is set aside for questions, half an hour from members and half an hour from the public. If member and pre-notified public questions do not fill this time, the council will open the meeting up to questions from the floor. This is an example of something considered normal practice in Islington, but which is unusual to members and officers from other councils. While it is positive that the council wants to encourage public participation in democratic processes, there is a balance to be struck with the need for officer and member preparation for public meetings, particularly when potentially contentious issues are raised; the council may wish to consider this further.

Audit and risk

The peer team heard the view that the council’s Audit and Risk Committee has functioned effectively, providing a high quality of challenge. Senior finance officers are always in attendance, as well as the head of internal audit and lead member for resources, although no other executive directors from outside finance. The range of agenda items is reported to be in line with what it is expected an audit committee should consider, with the committee undertaking deep dives on different issues.

The peer team was surprised however to hear that January’s meeting of the Audit and Risk Committee had considered the 2025/26 budget ahead of the budget being agreed at Full Council. In the peer team’s view, this would not be within the usual remit of an Audit Committee but appears to stray into the territory of pre-budget scrutiny. As part of its review of the constitution, the council should ensure that there are clearly demarcated and understood roles for both its Audit and Scrutiny committees, to avoid duplication and enable each committee to focus on its statutory role. A related point is the need to ensure clarity in the role of the majority group’s Policy Groups, whose thematic focus has also at times appeared to blur the lines with scrutiny. The council’s comprehensive member development and training offer should reinforce these distinctions.

The council’s risk management framework includes a risk appetite statement giving a high-level view of its risk tolerance. All directorates have a risk lead responsible for supporting corporate directors in monitoring departmental risks; significant risks are escalated to the corporate Principal Risk Register. This is updated annually, with a review process including the risk manager meeting with risk leads to review principal risks and a horizon scanning workshop with CMT: the updated register is presented to Audit and Risk Committee. Both CMT and the Audit and Risk Committee review principal risks and mitigations on a quarterly basis; the Committee also undertakes deep dives into individual risks.

The risk register informs the internal audit plan. The council has a shared internal audit service with Camden in place until June 2025: the peer team understands that the shared service will not be extended past June 2025 and will be brought fully in house. Islington will need to quickly identify resources and ensure it is clear on the required standards and approach for the service.

The internal audit strategy is presented annually to the audit and risk committee, as well as the risk based annual plan, which retains some flexibility to respond to issues arising. Over 700 audit days were delivered during 2023/24, with 32 audits covering all of the council’s directorates as well as cross-cutting reviews. Looking ahead, the council could further consider how its internal audit plan can be used as a management tool that adds impact and looks at value for money, as well as supporting a corporate risk focus.

The section 151 officer and head of internal audit meet with directorate management team representatives through the Quarterly Controls Board to follow up internal audit recommendations, and both finance and internal audit leads sit on the new Strategic Risk and Assurance Group. There is good engagement between the head of internal audit, chief executive and section 151 officer.

For the previous three years, the head of internal audit has given an opinion of moderate assurance over the adequacy and effectiveness of the council’s arrangements, with generally adequate systems for control, risk and governance but some improvement required.

Staff culture

The peer team heard positive feedback about Islington as a ‘brilliant and exciting place to work’ with the longevity of many staff and diversity of its workforce testament to the staff culture at Islington: ‘Islington recruits people who are genuinely nice and kind and want to do a good job.’ Several staff highlighted the opportunities to develop they had enjoyed at the council, although it was recognised that with low turnover, the council couldn’t consistently offer upward career progression.

As noted, there is recognition that internal communications and forums to connect staff have been strengthened to good effect. Work to embed the council’s CARE values has also been impactful, with the values clearly resonating with staff and visible from the point of induction.

Islington has five active and energetic colleague forums focused on disability, carers, women, LGBT, and race and equity. Each of the forums has a corporate director link, their ‘CMT Active Ally’; the forum chairs also meet with the chief executive on a quarterly basis, as well as with the HR team. The forums are consulted on changes to staff policies ahead of wider consultation and have helped to shape the recently launched learning and development programme for managers. Feedback from the disability forum about the reasonable adjustments process led to a new role to support disabled staff which has helped speed up people receiving this, with positive feedback.

The networks are also drawn into dealing with personal cases when members reach out for support, although it is not intended that casework should be part of their role. There are significant demands on the time of the forum chairs, and uncertainty among staff about using their learning and development allowance to attend network events – the council could promote greater consistency by managers in supporting this.

Solid foundations

Alongside being a comparatively well-resourced council, Islington has benefitted from good internal financial management and is in a stronger position than other councils. However, the council faces a more challenging financial future with less experience than others of delivering tough decisions and meeting high savings targets. A different approach may be needed to manage this new reality.

Islington is one of just a few councils that does not have a deficit on the high needs block of the dedicated schools grant. Currently, it is also reporting a lower level of overspends on key pressures such as temporary accommodation, children’s services and adults than other comparable councils.

To date, growing service overspends have been managed centrally by recurrent contingencies and corporate savings, which have in part come from the council’s prudent approach to investment, treasury management and the capital programme.

Looking forward at the Medium-Term Financial Plan there is a risk that service overspends will continue, if saving targets are not made clearer and deemed deliverable. This, alongside a trend of service overspending from demand and policy asks, could not be met through the current level of corporate provision.

With the growing financial pressures, the section 151 officer alongside CMT colleagues should assess whether holding so much corporate provision, and the limited clarity around some savings targets, is a sustainable approach, or whether it risks undermining ownership and accountability by services of overspending and savings delivery.

The council has proposed a balanced budget for 2025/26. Looking further ahead, there is good recognition of the scale of the pressures and challenges to come in the assumptions identified by the finance team to establish the medium-term budget gap. While the budget gap increases over time, the council has already identified savings to be targeted for future years; however the Peer Team did not see evidence of detailed plans to support savings in future years, many of which will require lead up time and action in the next financial year.

The council has clear processes for budget monitoring, with monthly tracking via budget holders, directorate management teams and CMT; there is quarterly reporting on the budget to the executive. The council’s savings tracker is discussed at bi-monthly meetings between the corporate directors with the chief executive and section 151 officer; as noted previously, the chief executive chairs directorate management meetings on a bi-monthly basis with a focus on budget and performance.

The council has been effective at leveraging external funding, ranging from smaller grants such as the NIHR research grant to the £89m grant from MHCLG to support temporary accommodation and the councils Right to Buy buy back.

Grip and pace on the council’s capital programme has historically been challenging, but the council has taken steps in recent years to monitor and drive this more effectively, including a recent Local Partnerships assurance review of the council’s capital programme management. The newly established chief executive chaired Capital and Asset Strategic Board is providing clearer oversight over this area, though the council may want to review the expectation that the chief executive leads this work in the medium to longer term. Separately, the Borough Investment Panel is determining use of the community infrastructure levy forward improvements; it may be helpful for the council to clarify how the two link together. The council could also further enhance its capital programme through developing a clearer gateway and assessment criteria for capital investment, supported by the executive and CMT. The council has recently developed a new Strategic Asset Management Plan; whilst this begins to set out a framework for decision making, the Capital and Asset Strategic Board needs to have clear criteria to inform decision making that fits with the council’s change programme and secures savings.

As set out above, the Audit and Risk Committee is viewed to have functioned effectively, although there is a need to ensure it remains focused on its audit remit rather than straying into scrutiny matters.

The peer team heard of a constructive working relationship with the council’s external auditors. Islington’s accounts have been externally audited up to 2023/24, with the most recent opinion not flagging any value for money or financial sustainability issues.

Issues to focus on

There is recognition that Islington is facing a significantly more challenging financial future and ‘cannot continue as we are’ in affordability terms. Difficult decisions will be required about the size of the organisation, what it continues to deliver and how.

Although the council has set a balanced budget for 2025/26, the peer team recommends that the council quickly confirm the timeline and plan for the business and budget setting for 2026/27, particularly in the context of a new executive member for resources being appointed in May.

As noted elsewhere in this report, it is important that this timetable incorporates opportunities for the executive and CMT to jointly engage, as well as factoring in wider member engagement at an earlier point, on the financial envelope for 2026/27 and beyond. The peer team heard that wider member engagement on budget setting is based upon Labour group meetings relatively late in the process – with more challenging times ahead it may be prudent to expand this and to hold these far earlier in the process to inform and debate options.

This is particularly important as the council has been relatively well protected from having to take difficult decisions; where it has done, for example on school reorganisation, this required a lengthy process and was ultimately subject to the council’s first call in for several years. While ensuring robust consideration of future decisions, the council will need to be more agile than this. Early work to set the strategic direction for how the council moves forward, and to understands any political red lines, will be helpful in framing later challenging discussions. In short, executive ownership and wider member engagement in the changes to come is vital.

Linked to this is the need to ensure that the council’s identified savings plans are substantiated with a clear timeline and delivery plans. The council appears previously to have relied on individual directorates identifying their own savings; there is scope for a less siloed process that looks at savings corporately and collectively and is more closely focused on outcomes.

The peer team recognised the work the council has done to develop a new business planning and performance management approach but as noted in section one, recommends that business planning is more closely linked to budget planning and risk management, and that performance reporting is linked to the council’s budget reporting to help inform decision making. The peer team also felt the council could consider how to make its financial monitoring reports more concise and action focused.

More generally, the council’s vision, delivery plan and outcomes are not directly linked to the medium-term financial strategy, and many of the council’s strategies and plans lack a financial narrative. The council should ensure it consistently identifies financial implications and risks in all its plans.

Finally, the peer team recommends that the council seeks an external review of the Finsbury Leisure Centre scheme, a major capital project intended to revamp the existing leisure centre alongside the development of 100 new build homes and 100 social homes. This is an ambitious project on a site originally allocated for redevelopment in 2013; public engagement on the outline masterplan commenced in July 2022. However, the scale of the project makes it an extremely expensive and high-risk venture for the council.

Given the potential financial risks for the council, it should revisit the original feasibility study for the project to ensure that it remains financially viable in the current, more challenging financial climate, as well as reassessing its value for money compared to other options available. An external review should also consider whether the council has the capacity and capability to deliver a scheme of this size.

An external review will help to inform Islington’s ultimate decision on whether to proceed with the proposals. Ahead of this decision and, if appropriate, beyond it, the council (through its Capital and Asset Strategic Board, CMT, executive and audit and risk committee) will need to ensure robust governance and clear oversight of the project and any related decision making.

As a solid foundation for future improvement, Islington has a clear understanding of the areas where it needs to focus, with the council’s position statement signposting of themes the peer team also picked up on and have made recommendations about. In some areas, Islington has already taken steps to establish the building blocks necessary to help it transform and improve in the coming years. In others, it is at an earlier stage in starting to do so but there is good awareness of what is needed; work is underway but with lots to do.

Islington’s HROD function has been significantly strengthened in the past few years. The council has a positive relationship with its trade unions, with a partnership agreement in place; a positive starting point looking ahead to the council’s future change journey.

All directorates have a people plan. Earlier sections of this report have already referenced the new performance management framework and efforts to embed the CARE values. This work has been impactful; feedback to the peer team showed clear understanding and identification with the values; ‘the CARE values really resonate’ with staff. This is supported by the 2024 staff survey results which indicated a 19 per cent jump (from the 2021 survey) to 90 per cent, in the number of staff reporting that they understand how to demonstrate Islington’s CARE values in their work and a fifteen per cent jump, to 69 per cent, in staff reporting that senior management in their area demonstrates the CARE values. The council has also developed a five module Leading with CARE development programme, currently for heads of service and above, which has been well received.

The council has developed targeted leadership support for minority ethnic staff through its Black on Board scheme. The use of diverse interview panels for senior officer recruitment is seen to be adhered to and the council has a reciprocal mentoring scheme. While it is recognised that there is more to do to promote diversity at all levels of the organisation, the number of minority ethnic staff in the top 5 per cent of the council’s workforce increased from 19.3 per cent in 2019/20 to 31 per cent in 2023/24.

The council knows it has work to do to strengthen its use of data-led and digital approaches, with mixed maturity across the organisation, but there is a good understanding of this, willingness to do so and scope to build on the examples of good practice that exist. This includes the use of damp / mould sensors in housing, as well trialling use of artificial intelligence and MS Copilot in HROD and adult social care to automate processes and make savings in areas such as note taking; there has been positive feedback from staff on these pilots.

On data, the council is one a handful of pilot authorities awarded a £5m grant from the National Institute for Health and Care Research to boost research capacity and capability within local government. The grant for the council’s ‘Evidence Islington’ programme is supporting additional staffing capacity with a particular focus on housing and health data; the council now has an embedded researcher in housing.

Currently, the majority of the council’s analyst capability sits within public health, focusing on housing, adult social care, public health and some corporate data; the team works closely with analysts in the children’s directorate. However, the council is in the early stages of restructuring its data and intelligence function to ensure a more centralised and visible structure for a key corporate function that is explicitly reflected in the delivery plan.

The council will need to quickly progress work in key areas such as data and digital to support its wider change programme. Successfully delivering these cross-organisational workstreams will require a tighter corporate grip than has been seen previously.

The peer team were asked to look at Islington’s change and transformation capability as a specific theme for the corporate peer challenge.

There is a general level of awareness across the organisation that change is coming, but acknowledgement that the council is ‘at the very beginning of a big change journey.’ The council does not yet have a clear narrative about change or an established change programme; there is work to do to articulate why change is necessary, what it will look like and how it will be delivered.

There is awareness among both those with a long association with the council and those who are new to the organisation that ‘change is a bit tricky here – it’s not immediately embraced.’ There are however some signs that this mindset is changing, with the council more open to learning from others. People the peer team spoke to had confidence that ‘there are change makers and change sponsors across the organisation’ that the council can draw on ‘….but we need to keep repeating [why] and not rely on a small number of people.’ Coupled with the council’s strong track record on service delivery, this evolving mindset will create opportunities for the council to be pioneering if it is confident in embracing change.

The change programme needs to be led with clear and visible ownership from the council’s executive and CMT. The peer team was concerned that change is too overtly associated with the new chief executive personally, with the implication that the responsibility sits with her alone. As noted elsewhere in this report, creating time for senior leaders to discuss and own key strategic issues such as the change agenda will help to drive the leadership required. The council will need to use its strengthened communications mechanisms effectively and sensitively to help take members, staff and partners with it.

Alongside developing a narrative on change, Islington must firm up its approach for managing it. The council has a disparate approach to change, which is typically led by directorates and with enabling change functions located in different parts of the organisation. As the council develops more cross-cutting projects, it will be important to identify how benefits are calculated and delivered in a one-council way.

The council has recently received the recommendations of an external review of its change model. The recommendations are tailored to the reality that change in Islington has to date been managed in a decentralised way but propose the establishment of an enabling core that helps coordinate and effect change across the council.

The peer team shares the view that some central capacity is necessary to design and lead the change programme and provide stronger corporate grip on both corporate and directorate change activity. The council should move forward with implementing the Leapwise recommendations as soon as possible. To support this work, the council may find it helpful to undertake a layers and spans review of its senior structure and consider how corporate change capability is structured, using this to help identify and then implement a new target operating model that meets the needs of a changing organisation.

One early task for a corporate change function should be to develop and share project tools that firstly promote a more rigorous approach to identifying how savings / benefits will be delivered through change activity and then subsequently track this, with accountability for delivery of the change programme clear to all.

It is recognised that senior political and managerial leadership will want to consider, discuss and reflect on these findings. The LGA will continue to provide on-going support to the council. Following publication of CPC report you need to produce and publish an action plan within five months of the time on site, by 6 July 2025. As part of the CPC, the council are also required to have a progress review and publish the findings from this within twelve months of the CPC, by 6 February 2026. The LGA will also publish the progress review report on their website.

The progress review will provide space for a council’s senior leadership to report to peers on the progress made against each of the CPC’s recommendations, discuss early impact or learning and receive feedback on the implementation of the CPC action plan. The progress review will usually be delivered on-site over one day.

The date for the progress review at Islington will be confirmed shortly.

In the meantime, Kate Herbert, principal adviser for London, is the main contact between your authority and the Local Government Association. As outlined above, Kate is available to discuss any further support the council requires. [email protected] or on 07867 632404.