LGA Corporate Peer Challenge: London Borough of Richmond

The London Borough of Richmond upon Thames (hereafter referred to as Richmond Council) is a unitary council based in South West London and one of the smallest boroughs in the capital. The Liberal Democrats have been in administration since 2018, winning a second term in 2022 with an enhanced majority of 48 out of 54 councillors. Richmond Council has been in a Shared Staff Arrangement (SSA) with Wandsworth Borough Council since 2016 which has delivered substantial savings for both authorities. Both authorities continue to be separate sovereign bodies with their own elected councillors, lead members, and leaders. 

Richmond Council is a high performing council. A recent Children’s Services inspection resulted in a ‘good’ rating and its primary schools are all rated as ‘good’ or ‘outstanding’ making the borough a desirable place for families to live. Although performing well across a range of indicators, it is recognised that there is an opportunity for the council to excel further and, as an aid to recruitment, to seek more external recognition for its achievements. There is an opportunity for Richmond to be a leader in the local government sector and share its own experiences and good practice, as well as bringing ideas back from the sector to further improve services and build on the council’s ongoing improvement journey.  

Richmond Council has a stable and experienced political leadership. This was not just evident through the Leader, but across all members that the Peer Team spoke to. There is a risk though of being willing to accept the status quo in the absence of a large opposition, and a need to work hard to ensure there continues to be internal challenge and drive for excellence.  

Members have a strong connection with their communities. Partners recognised that members were engaged, clearly visible, constructive, and active in their wards. This connection has been important to ensure the council is tuned into its community, particularly where officers work in different locations or remotely and therefore may not be as plugged into key local issues as much as ward members.  

The new chief executive and the changes he has made since joining the organisation have been well received by staff, members, and partners. Relationships between officers and members are good, and described as being ‘open, transparent and respectful’. The majority of members were complimentary about the support they receive from officers in their respective committees. However, it is important that there is an appreciation around officer capacity and that senior officers’ time is split across two councils.  

The committee system model of governance set up in May 2019 is running well. Its role is quite transactional however, leading to a relatively narrow interpretation of, and influence on the wider determinants of place-shaping. There is potential for all committee members to have more input in policy making and forward planning. In addition, there could be more exploration about what placemaking means for all communities as the current focus is around Richmond and Twickenham Town Centres. 

Members not part of the political leadership felt they were unable to influence policy development. There is an opportunity to involve all members at an earlier stage in policy making and to create capacity in the system for them to do that.  

Members told the Peer team that they would like to see more innovation, ideas generation and problem solving from officers to help them deliver on their priorities. It is important that the organisation creates a space for innovative thinking where members and officers can work in partnership and develop ideas together. 

There is a need for more thematic learning and development for members, so they are better informed and upskilled around the specific needs of their committees, particularly around health and audit. Member training currently in place is perceived as being broad scale and too general. A more thematic approach would enable members to better understand their role, improve their knowledge and skills so they are able to influence and challenge more appropriately. 

The Standards function warrants a greater profile at Richmond to ensure good and robust governance is maintained. There is an opportunity to use the Standards function as an opportunity to celebrate where member performance and behaviour is good, and this is something the council should embrace. 

Richmond is in a strong position financially with good financial controls which provide rigour to all proposals and policy documents before submission to committees. The council has a healthy position on reserves, with provision specifically for the DSG (Dedicated Schools Grant) and for transformation. There is a need to strengthen the governance and oversight of capital monitoring. With regard to financial management, there is a willingness to be less conservative and allow more innovation around budget planning and to start earlier in the financial year. This would enable the council to take a more strategic approach and have more in year financial management. There is a need to accelerate the scoping of the financial detail for the council’s transformation programme to inform how budget gaps plan to be addressed. 

Members on the Audit, Standards and Statutory Accounts Committee are keen to understand their role in more depth so they can provide greater assurance. There is a need to develop more positive relationships with External Audit and consider the offer for member development. 

Richmond is regarded as a good partner across all sectors. Partners reflected that the council’s response to Covid and the cost of living has been excellent. Partners felt highly engaged and welcomed working together to protect communities particularly during Covid through the Partnership Executive. There is a desire from partners to build on this good working relationship beyond Covid and to be more involved in the co-design of services.  

The council responds well to a very articulate and plugged-in community, particularly around environmental issues. However, the council can sometimes allow those voices to overshadow the needs of the wider community. The council should seek opportunities to engage with groups who may not always proactively reach out to the council. The authority may wish to consider commissioning a residents’ survey so that council policy and priorities can be shaped by a range of views that reflect the whole population. The authority might also consider using its partners such as the university to encourage engagement from less represented groups. 

The Peer Team was impressed by Richmond’s excellent Climate Change and Living Local Programme, in particular the ambition and outcomes, and recognised that there is an opportunity to scale up even further. Despite these excellent programmes of work, the council does not seek external recognition. The Peer Team also heard examples where the council is performing well across a number of other service areas but does not enter submissions for national awards. 

There is an opportunity to exploit Richmond’s heritage, history, identity, and culture as part of the borough’s visitor economy and make it more of an international destination. Richmond’s history and sporting culture should be used, shared, and celebrated more widely as a destination and community offer. 

Staff reflected on the benefits and challenges of working for the SSA. Senior staff recognised how working for two councils contributed towards their career development, although the Peer Team questioned if this benefit was being realised by all staff.  

Navigating across two different systems of governance and sets of meetings across two councils was seen as a challenge by staff across the board, constraining their capacity to be innovative. Cumbersome processes were mentioned on numerous occasions as driving the work that the officers do and are sometimes used as a barrier to action. Some staff described how they had found it necessary to find work arounds and ‘swerve’ some of the non-statutory processes put in place which they did not see adding value and were draining capacity. Senior officers should work to find processes that work for the future, using best practice from elsewhere. There is appetite and energy across the whole organisation to streamline and improve processes to create the much-needed capacity required to realise the ambitions of members. As part of the SSA’s transformation programme there is also a need to review opportunities to reinvest in the officer core to ensure both councils and the SSA are fit for the future.  

There is clear commitment from the senior leadership team to deliver change through the transformation programme. With the arrival of a new chief executive and a change of administration, staff felt this has created the space for open conversation on ‘how to challenge each other constructively’. 

Retaining separate identities and sovereignties are integral to both councils, however it is important that there is a balance when considering the culture and values of the single workforce that serves both organisations and how this feeds into the recruitment and retention approach of the SSA. 

There is a perception from members and staff that human resources (HR) and organisational development (OD) is too low in the management hierarchy and not valued as highly as it could be. There is a sense that the OD could be doing more in giving opportunity to the organisation.

There are a number of observations and suggestions within the main section of the report. The following are the peer team’s key recommendations to the council: 

Recommendation 1: Celebrate your achievements and create and take opportunities to appreciate staff and member contributions.  

Recommendation 2: Explore more thematic development for members (e.g. health, audit). 

Recommendation 3: Attend to "less vocal" neighbourhoods to understand their needs and shape more localised plans.  

Recommendation 4: Explore scope for better placemaking governance and consider developing a connected neighbourhood vision with place goals, linked to shaping a partnership delivery plan.  

Recommendation 5: Explore ways to promote greater innovation and problem solving to deliver ideas and choices to members.  

Recommendation 6: Examine where the current financial control and grip could be loosened to help achieve the council’s ambition to be more innovative, particularly around budget planning.

Shared Staff Arrangement (SSA)

Recommendation 7: Continue development of the emerging transformation programme, attending to co-design with members, employees, and partners. 

Recommendation 8: Ensure link is evident between the intent of the emerging transformation programme and investment in it and the delivery of the member agenda for residents. 

Recommendation 9: Accelerate the development of your employer brand under the "Great Employer" workstream. 

Recommendation 10: Review schemes of delegation and empower streamlining of forms and processes to create capacity, increase pace, reduce duplication, and motivate staff to increase productivity– learn from the ‘swerve'! 

Recommendation 11: Raise profile and strengthen OD specialism across the organisation and be prepared to invest in people with the skills to enable change. 

Recommendation 12: Consider the value and opportunity of senior leaders spending planned, purposeful time together to develop the strategic agenda. 

Recommendation 13: Consider how to develop a greater sense of joint political governance for change. 

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 on the basis of their relevant expertise. The peers were:

• Lead Officer Peer: David Williams, Chief Executive at Portsmouth City Council and Gosport Borough Council 
• Joint Lead Member Peer: Cllr Vikki Slade (Lib Dem), Leader of the Opposition at Bournemouth, Christchurch, and Poole Council 
• Joint Lead Member Peer: Mayor Philip Glanville (Labour), Mayor of LB Hackney 
• Officer Peer: Alison Stuart, Chief Legal Officer and Monitoring Officer at LB Barking and Dagenham 
• Officer Peer: Cherry Bennett, Director of People and Policy, Bath and North East Somerset Council 
• Officer Peer: Kate Martin, Executive Director for Place at Sheffield City Council 
• Officer Peer: Rachel Crossley, Joint Executive Director, Public Service Reform at Surrey Heartlands ICS (Integrated Care Systems) and Surrey County Council 
• LGA Peer Challenge Manager: Sophie Poole, LGA (LGA Lead and Wandsworth PCM) 
• LGA Peer Challenge Manager: James Mehmed, LGA (Richmond PCM

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.

• Local priorities and outcomes – Are the council’s priorities clear and informed by the local context? Is the council delivering effectively on its priorities? 
• Organisational and place leadership – Does the council provide effective local leadership? Are there good relationships with partner organisations and local communities?
• Governance and culture – Are there clear and robust governance arrangements? Is there a culture of challenge and scrutiny?
• 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?
• Capacity for improvement – Is the organisation able to support delivery of local priorities? Does the council have the capacity to improve?

In addition to these questions, the council asked the peer team to provide feedback on:

• Decision making and governance – this is reflected in the section ‘Governance and Culture’
• Transformation and capacity for change – a strong focus on capacity to deliver future transformation programme across both councils. Is your corporate capacity able to deliver? Human resources, organisational development, and communications? This is reflected in the section under ‘Capacity to Deliver’

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. The team then spent three and a half days onsite at Richmond Council during which they:

• Gathered information and views from more than 39 meetings, in addition to further research and reading.
• Spoke to more than 130 people including a range of council staff together with members and external stakeholders.

As the peer challenge was delivered jointly for both Richmond Council and Wandsworth Council, which have a shared staff arrangement, some of the documents that the Peer Team reviewed and people that the Peer Team spoke to, were relevant to both councils.

Richmond Council is a high performing council. A recent Children’s Services inspection resulted in a ‘good’ rating and its primary schools are all rated as ‘good’ or ‘outstanding’ making it a desirable place for families to live. Richmond’s Library Service and Adult Social Care also came out top in London following recent reviews. Richmond has also been named London’s happiest place to live in a recent Evening Standard Survey. Although performing well across a range of indicators, it is recognised that there is an opportunity for the council to excel further and go from ‘good’ to ‘great’. 

It was clear to the Peer Team that all members have a strong connection with their communities. Partners recognised that members were engaged, clearly visible, constructive, and active in their wards. This connection has been important to ensure the council is ‘tuned into’ its community, particularly where officers work in different locations or remotely and therefore may not be as plugged into the key issues as much as ward members.  

There was a strong sense of partnership working across the borough, particularly with the voluntary sector, police, NHS, and St Mary’s University. The Peer Team were told by partners that the council is inclusive, works well in a crisis and that their response to Covid and the cost of living had been excellent. Partners felt highly engaged and welcomed working with the council to protect communities particularly during Covid through the Partnership Executive which was a great example of working through solutions as a partnership. There is a desire from partners to build on this good working relationship beyond Covid and to be more involved in the co-design of services throughout their development not just being consulted when work has mostly been completed as a 'rubber stamp'.  

Richmond’s neighbouring boroughs told the Peer Team that they enjoyed a good working relationship with Richmond, sharing a number of key services across the South West London boroughs such as legal, regulatory, and audit. Neighbouring boroughs felt their relationship with Richmond was based on mutual trust and that the council was open to discussion on new approaches, despite having different ambitions and different communities. Neighbouring authorities also had admiration for the way Richmond and Wandsworth have made the shared staff arrangement work so effectively.  

The Peer Team heard from a number of people that the council responds well to a very articulate and plugged-in community particularly around environmental issues. However, partners expressed concern that sometimes the council allows those voices to overshadow the needs of the wider community. There was a view that Richmond should seek opportunities to engage with groups who may not always proactively reach out to the council such as students and young people. There is also a risk that the voices of those who regularly use council services are not being heard, with one partner observing that ‘Richmond is not a good place to be poor’. The Peer Team were told that the council had not facilitated a full residents survey since just before the pandemic. The authority may wish to consider commissioning a residents’ survey so that council policy and priorities can be shaped by a range of views that reflect the whole population.  

Some ward councillors also told the Peer Team that they would like to move away from Town Hall events that often engaged ‘the few’ and return to a more thematic approach engaging residents in community conversations.  

The Peer Team were impressed by the council’s excellent Climate Change and Living Local Programme, in particular the ambition and outcomes, and recognised that there is an opportunity to scale up even further. The council has a clear vision around ‘Fairer, Safer, Greener’. Partners in particular felt the council was clear on its priorities and good at vision sharing. However, partners also reflected that the vision does not always filter down to customer facing services, particularly where service delivery is not clearly in line with the council’s stated ambitions. One partner also reflected that the council needs to ‘walk the walk’ with business users expected to have high environmental standards but council rental space did not always meet the same level of climate standards. 

There was a general view that the administration has made a commitment to deliver on their manifesto promises from when they were first elected, but now it is time to deliver on large scale projects such as the Twickenham Riverside, Ham Close and the Brewery Development which were described as ‘hanging around for a while’ and that now is the municipal term in which those projects should be delivered. 

Richmond Council has a very stable and experienced political leadership, which was not just evident through the Leader, but across all members that the Peer Team spoke to. However, in that landscape, there is a risk of being willing to accept the status quo. In the absence of a large opposition, there is a need to work harder to ensure there continues to be internal challenge and drive for excellence. 

Richmond is quietly achieving and ‘getting on with the job’ without seeking external recognition. The Peer Team heard examples where the council is performing well across a number of service areas but does not put in for national awards. There is frustration among members and officers that Richmond does not shout out about its successes enough and they would like to see more ambition in driving this forward particularly as a way of attracting talent to the organisation. There is an opportunity for Richmond to be a leader in the local government sector and share its own experiences and good practice, as well as bringing ideas back from the sector to further improve council services and build on the council’s ongoing improvement journey.  

The Peer Team picked up on members’ frustration around pace and that they would like to see more innovation, ideas generation and problem solving from officers to help them deliver on their priorities. One member commented: “I hadn’t anticipated that I had to come up with all the ideas, I expected the officers to have been thinking it [the manifesto] through, coming up with great ideas to test out.” It is important that the organisation creates a space for innovative thinking where members and officers can work in partnership and develop ideas together.  

Members felt that officers have adopted some practices from Wandsworth as part of the SSA and are concerned that ‘twin tracking’ policy or process change could see the identity of Richmond lost. There appeared to be a lack of understanding from members around where the capacity to deliver sits within the SSA. Richmond members reflected that they found it helpful to have informal joint conversations with their counterpart at Wandsworth when involved in the appointment of senior SSA staff, particularly when triangulating their experience of the arrangement. 

It was clear from speaking to councillors that there is scope for more thematic development for members, so they are better informed and upskilled around the specifics needed for their committees, particularly around health and audit. The Peer Team heard that members were often appointed to a committee without fully understanding its purpose or the clarity of their role on it. This has resulted in some committees becoming information sharing forums with little expectation for challenge or scrutiny. Member training currently in place is perceived as being broad scale and too general. A more thematic approach would enable members to better understand their role, improve their knowledge and skills so they are able to challenge appropriately. 

There is a perception from members and officers that HR and OD is too low in the management hierarchy and not valued as highly as it should be. There is a sense that OD could be doing more in giving opportunity to the organisation.  

There is an opportunity for directors and members to spend time on developing and strengthening their relationship and for both cohorts to work together and take a more collective response on issues or specific areas of the council, rather than it being one cohort or the other. For example, it is important to make sure the design and implementation of the transformation agenda has its roots in better delivering member priorities and services to the public. With regards to place leadership, there is a need to hear from and understand the less vocal residents better, and to invest in and shape more localised plans for their needs. For instance, plans should be shaped by those who use Richmond town centre, not just those who are living there. There is also an opportunity to better understand the approach for Twickenham Riverside and other major developments in the borough and how they will benefit the wider borough and community.  

There is also an opportunity to exploit Richmond’s heritage, history, identity, and culture as part of the borough’s visitor economy and make it more of an international destination. Richmond’s history and sporting culture should be used, shared, and celebrated more widely as a destination and community offer. 

Richmond has a clear focus on liveability, quality design, carefully planned projects, enabling of safe and healthy neighbourhoods. However, councillors, partners and voluntary sector would welcome the opportunity for co-production through ‘community conversations’ across all the town centre to deliver an ‘added value, locality-focused’ place shaping plan. 

Partners praised the Transport Forum for successfully navigating around an issue involving disability and cycling and said that more of these rounded conversations to find solutions to shape plans that benefit groups across the community would be welcome.  

There is also the potential for the future reshaping of the Partnership agreement with Richmond Housing Partnership, to focus on housing choice, access to homes and service standards. There is question around how the council could have more influence on the choice of standards going forward.

The general consensus from everyone that the Peer Team spoke to was that the committee system model of governance set up in May 2019 was running well. However, the Peer Team heard that due to the structure of the committee system, its role was mostly transactional, leading to a relatively narrow interpretation of, and influence on the wider determinants of place-shaping. 

The Policy and Performance Board’s function is to scrutinise and deep dive into the policy and performance of the council. However, members perceive their role on the board as ‘very narrow’ with limited flexibility for take ideas forward. While officers perceive the board as taking up a disproportionate amount of time for the outcomes it delivers. There is a question around whether there should be a rebalancing of the committee system so that members, even those who don’t sit on committee, still have a way to influence decision making. 

Relationships between officers and members are good, and described as being ‘open, transparent and respectful’. The majority of members that the Peer Team spoke to were complimentary about the support they receive from officers in their respective committees. Members flagged concerns about the quality of reports brought forward by officers on occasion. However, it is important that there is an appreciation around the current officer capacity and that their time is split between two councils. The Peer Team heard examples where staff are often attending several evening council meetings a week across both councils. This is not sustainable long term. In another example, the Peer Team were told that committee meetings for both councils had been held on the same night, meaning that officers were not physically able to attend both. 

Members told the Peer Team it is not always obvious how they can influence policy development if they are not part of the political leadership. An example was given of Regulatory Committee members feeling disconnected from regulatory policy making and that there was a lack of understanding around where the governance of the committee sits. The Peer Team were also told there was a lack of clarity over which committee forums members should direct specific areas of focus, such as social value, and that individual committee forward plans do not work in practice, making it hard for members to engage. There is an opportunity to involve members at an earlier stage in policy making and to create capacity in the system for them to do that. There was a perception that reports brought to committee can often be a ‘fait accompli’ and do not present a variety of solutions. Agendas, wherever possible, should present a range of options setting out the pros and cons, so that members can make informed decisions at committee; the reports can still contain a clear recommendation. 

The Peer Team felt that the Standards function warrants a greater profile at Richmond. While it was clear that member performance and behaviour is good at Richmond meaning there are no specific issues, there is still an opportunity to use the Standards function as an opportunity to celebrate that the council has good member protocols, and that Richmond carries out its governance duties. 

The council has a strong local identity and pride in Richmond, and there was a clear sense that there is a ‘Richmond way of doing things’. Members recognised the benefits of the SSA but had concerns that if there was too much harmonisation particularly in the way documents are presented or in the running of the organisation, the unique ‘flavour’ of Richmond could be lost. Having a clear Richmond branding and style for outward-facing reports was clearly seen as important politically. Members also questioned the resilience of the SSA in the event of a political change if systems were joined too closely together, although the SSA has coped well following the change of control in Richmond in 2018 and in Wandsworth in 2022. The Shared Service Arrangement transformation programme creates an opportunity for both councils to explore and pilot where greater efficiencies can be made, freeing up officer capacity, and maintaining sovereignty without compromising the quality of valued governance arrangements.  

EDI needs to have a more visible commitment and focus both within the council and in understanding the needs of all communities. The Peer Team heard on several occasions that communities felt that the council’s commitment to EDI was not always reflected in its actions such as in its literature and priorities. 

One person that the Peer Team spoke to noted that according to the most recent census, “16 per cent of the population is from a minority background but this does not seem to filter through to output".  

Richmond did provide evidence of an Equality Stakeholder Scrutiny Group which acts as a critical friend to the council. However voluntary sector stakeholders were unaware of its existence, raising concerns that there is only a single Multicultural Richmond Group. The council needs to raise the profile of the Equality Stakeholder Scrutiny Group and address the voluntary sector’s current perception.

Richmond is in a strong positional financially, with good financial controls in place. The Peer Team noted that the Finance and Resources Lead Member has a good understanding of the finances and is keen to influence the agenda.  

Richmond’s current financial controls provide rigour to all proposals and policy documents before submission to committees and the council has a relatively healthy position on reserves, with provision specifically for the DSG and for transformation. There is a need to strengthen the governance and oversight of capital monitoring 

With regard to financial management, there is a willingness from members to be less conservative and allow more innovation around budget planning. There is a desire from those that the Peer Team spoke to, to have a more proactive process around budget planning that starts earlier in the financial year. This would enable the council to take a more strategic approach to financial planning and have a greater influence on proposals before they are brought forward at budget time. There is a need to accelerate the scoping of the financial detail for the transformation programme to inform how it is planned to address budget gaps. There is also scope to increase the sense of ownership and control of budgets at a directorate level, by creating more empowerment to address the current perception that budgets are controlled centrally.

On procurement, it was recognised this is an area for development across both councils, with no central hub currently in place for contract management, meaning contracts sit with those who let them and currently there is no current overarching procurement strategy.  

Members of the Richmond Audit Committee are keen and want help to better understand their role so they can provide greater assurance. While the Chair has received training which has been welcomed, all members of the audit committee would welcome more training. There is a need to develop more positive relationships with External Audit and consider increasing the current offer for member development, particularly for the Chair of Audit. 

The Shared Staff Arrangement is well regarded by the majority of people that the Peer Team spoke to. Members described it as ‘a bit of a marriage which needs to be protected to keep it working’. Neighbouring boroughs also complimented both councils on how they have made the arrangement work so effectively over time.  

The Peer Team spent time talking to different groups of staff from a wide range of services, including directors, assistant directors, middle managers and front line staff. It was clear from everyone that the Peer Team spoke to that staff are professional, experienced, loyal and enjoy working in a high performing culture.  

The new chief executive has been well received by staff, partners and members and is seen as ‘visible and interested’ creating a sense of optimism. Staff felt positive about the changes brought in since the new chief executive’s arrival, such as more regular meetings of the Chief Officer Group which has made senior staff feel part of a cohesive leadership team. This has also prompted directors to recognise the importance of spending more strategic planning time together. 

There is clear commitment from the senior leadership team to commit to change through the transformation programme. With the arrival of a new chief executive, staff felt this has created the space for open conversation on ‘how to challenge each other constructively’. 

While staff recognise that visible changes and engagement had been taking place since the arrival of the new chief executive, staff emphasised that there is a need to ‘keep at it, continue to ask for feedback, go on walkabouts, so it becomes our way of working and is built into the DNA’.    

Communications appear to be mostly top-down. The Peer Team heard that directors want staff to feel listened to and engaged with service planning. While staff survey and service planning focus groups are being held, there are opportunities for even more engagement with Assistant Directors and Heads of Service and the wider staff group. A number of staff the Peer Team spoke to said they valued the new blogs that the chief executive and directors are committed to writing.  

Staff welcomed the recent Staff Survey. There is now a need to devote capacity for timely conversations and action as a result of the feedback at service level, as well as at different staff levels across departments. It is important that staff see demonstrable change as a result of the survey and that this is proactively communicated, to install confidence that their views have been heard. Delivering a staff survey is a huge undertaking for an in-house team and the Peer Team would suggest that the council considers commissioning future surveys of this size outside of the organisation, to reinforce anonymity, build trust with the workforce, and speed up analysis of the data. 

In terms of staff recognition, the Peer Team were told this is not consistent outside of the annual staff awards. Staff recognition should be regular and permeate through to day-to-day activity – staff commented that 'a simple thank you goes a long way'.  

Another common theme that emerged was the experience of staff working across two council systems. Senior staff told the Peer Team that they find the challenge and opportunities working for two councils rewarding as part of their career development. However, it was not clear to the Peer Team if this opportunity is being maximised across all levels of the organisation. Senior staff recognised that working for two councils meant that they were better paid compared to most local government officers in the same role. Staff have become adept at naturally shifting their attention between the two councils ‘day by day, and often hour by hour’. Staff are committed to their roles and are conscientious, often working very long hours.  

Staff talked about how duplication to ‘fulfil statutory duties’ across both councils was hindering their capacity for innovation. Staff have learnt to navigate the two democratic and planning systems but described it as extremely challenging and that refining this would aid resilience. One member of staff described the system as working, ‘but it is clumsy and mechanical’.  

Staff across the board also felt there were a number of cumbersome processes (HR, procurement, finance processes) which were dominating their work, rather than enabling delivery and that this was impacting on productivity and limiting the value-added time for managers in particular.  

A member of staff told the Peer Team: “I don't have enough time to see what others are doing - we are not absorbing best practice in various sectors” and “we can see that there are inefficiencies in our processes and systems, but we don't have enough people to do that thinking.” There is an appetite and energy across the whole organisation to streamline and improve processes to create capacity. Directors recognised that if certain controls were eased off this would empower their direct reports to work more freely. 

Staff told the Peer Team that most of the existing processes within the SSA were already established when the arrangement was initially set up, with middle managers and front-line staff repeatedly referencing ‘the Wandsworth Way’. There is an opportunity to reset the narrative and develop an ‘SSA way’ as part of the transformation programme values work.  

The Peer Team also heard from staff about the ‘grip’ the SSA has through its processes across both councils, which has helped secure their current financial positions but may be inhibiting flexibility and the scope for greater innovation and creativity. Officers told the Peer Team that when bringing forward proposals for consideration, particularly at Directors’ Board, the challenge they received was too robust at times.  

It is clear that the SSA has delivered significant savings for both councils and significant benefits for residents in both boroughs. However, the repeated challenge that the Peer Team heard around capacity suggests there is also merit in considering reinvesting in the officer core to make sure the arrangement is fit for the future and the right skills and capacity are in the right places to realise the ambition and aspirations of both councils. This is particularly important in light of the emerging transformation programme, which has already started and needs to be delivered at pace, as well as the clear steer members have given around their expectations and aspirations. 

The Peer Team was very aware of the importance to both councils of retaining their separate identities and sovereignties. However, this had translated into staff feeling awkward about mentioning that they are doing work for the other council and had created an additional pressure: "When talking to members, I'm not allowed to mention the other council." The Peer Team understands this anxiety has eased slightly and that officers can now refer to both councils in reports that they bring forward to committee.  

Both councils need to be alive to how this can impact on the organisation having open conversations on how to prioritise and manage pressure points. For example, it was reported that officers not talking about the other council permeated as far as applying for awards: “Why can’t we do more to nominate for national awards, for one council, team or person and celebrate it? We are too worried about one seeming better than the other rather than celebrating difference.” This is holding both councils back in celebrating their achievements and good practice in the sector and sharing their successes.  

A positive example where both councils are aligned is the climate change agenda, which all staff could get behind. The Peer Team would encourage both councils to continually look to see where priorities align and seek opportunities to work jointly in this way, where outcomes benefit both organisations and make good use of the SSA resource. 

The Peer Team also heard a number of times how staff were confused around identity and who they work for. Staff who joined the organisation more recently understood they were employed by the SSA while working for both councils. However, a significant number of staff the Peer Team spoke to, who worked at either council before the formation of the SSA described themselves as working for one council or the other.  

In this confusion, a narrative that talks about working for the residents is overshadowed. The transformation programme and the ‘Great Employer’ workstream should be prioritised as it is an opportunity to address a single narrative around identify, bring about one workforce culture and set of values, particularly as part of the organisation’s approach to recruitment and retention.  

As part of the transformation programme there is also an opportunity to increase OD visibility and capacity and for the two councils to learn more from one another. There is a widely held view that time is needed to work out what OD means for the SSA, and there are opportunities to draw on the experience and expertise in Adult and Children’s Services. One head of service commented: “We have some gems in the next layer who can lead if empowered.” Another member of staff said: “We need different types of leaders for the future - compassionate leadership, system leaders. OD is missing from the heart of the organisation.” For the senior leadership, there is an opportunity to provide coaching and executive leadership support as well as a teamwork programme to build a new culture, trust, team ethos and values. Investment in training and support for middle managers would empower them to lead and manage change across services and partnerships. 

The new Workspace Pilots which have been brought into some parts of the organisation as part of the transformation programme have been well received by those staff who benefit from them and have been positive in signalling new ways of working. However, their success has created an inconsistent approach to agile working across the SSA with staff keen for the improvements to be rolled out across the rest of the organisation.  

The Peer Team recognised that there are green shoots around the EDI agenda, with initiatives to improve management diversity and introduce reciprocal mentoring. The Peer Team heard that work had been done on the gender pay gap, that they were engaging with the 10000 Black Interns Programme and looking at representation from an EDI perspective in the top quartile of the organisation. However, there is more work to do in ensuring the workforce reflects the diversity of the residents they serve particularly in the management tiers of the organisation. 

It is recognised that senior political and managerial leadership will want to consider, discuss, and reflect on these findings.

Both the peer team and LGA are keen to build on the relationships formed through the peer challenge. The CPC (Corporate Peer Challenge) process includes a six-month check-in session, which provides space for the council’s senior leadership to update peers on its progress against the action plan and discuss next steps.

In the meantime, Kate Herbert, Principal Adviser for London, is the main contact between your authority and the Local Government Association. Kate is available to discuss any further support the council requires. [email protected]

Sophie Poole

Senior Regional Advisor

Local Government Association