Agenda item

This report provides a summary of the Council’s Transformation Programme and achievement against its original aims and objectives.

The Portfolio Holder for Transformation, Resources and Governance, presented a report, a copy of which had been circulated to each Member and a copy of which appears as Appendix 'A' to these Minutes in the Minute

Book.

The report provided a summary of achievements against the Council’s Transformation Programme original business cases, the aims and objectives of each of the programme’s core themes and made recommendations to Cabinet for the programme’s completion. The Portfolio Holder referred in particular to the savings achieved, as detailed in paragraphs 6 to 9, and the success in bringing together three versions of every service into a single unified operating model. The report outlined key areas of focus including IT, estates and accommodation and people and culture. The ongoing operational delivery of the People Strategy and Estates and Accommodation Programme was noted along with those objectives which remained outstanding. The Board was advised that the future governance of transformation beyond completion of the programme was to be undertaken by the Corporate Strategy Delivery Board. The Portfolio Holder expressed his appreciation to all service directors and staff who had been involved in the transformation programme and to the elected members on the Transformation Working Group. It was acknowledged that much of what had been achieved was not necessarily obvious to residents.

A number of points were raised and responded to including:

• How many staff were made redundant as part of the programme? These figures would be compiled and circulated to the Board after the meeting. It was always known that there would be a significant reduction in posts as part of transformation. It was noted that much of these came from vacancies being offered, with some voluntary redundancies and where required a very small number of compulsory redundancies.
• What was the basis for the £665,000 per annum attributed to moving the economic development service to full cost recovery, this appeared to be ambitious?  The Board was advised that the service was intended to generate revenue to cover the costs of the team, including through the use of grants.
• There was universal recognition that the savings predicted in the original business case had been achieved despite the challenges of the last five years and some previous misgivings about the level of savings anticipated although it was noted that these levels had been carefully considered at the time.
• There was a concern about an apparent lack of elected member oversight in the future governance arrangements. The Portfolio Holder assured the Board that there would be little change, in terms of his role and the ability to bring reports to Cabinet and Overview and Scrutiny. It was noted that the members’ working group would also continue.
• What was involved in ongoing revenue licencing and financing costs of £15.5m? This related to the cost of Microsoft licences for the Council’s systems and security over the five year period. This was subject to regular monitoring internally to ensure it was providing best value for money.
• What had been achieved in five years while Pay and Reward remained outstanding? The Board was reminded of the unique complexity of local government reorganisation (LGR) in BCP with differences of pay, grading and terms and conditions between the three sets of staff from the preceding councils, the transfer of external staff into the Council and new starters post 2019. The Council had succeeded in bringing everything together into a single Pay and Reward proposal. Negotiations continued with GMB. Should agreement be reached and a further ballot be successful, implementation could be around six months from that date, otherwise the process could take another year at least. The Portfolio Holder reported on progress since September, including that negotiations were going well prior to Christmas and a further update was pending.
• It was acknowledged that the challenges over the last five years, particularly the financial pressures, made it difficult for residents to see the benefits of LGR. There had been an expectation of improved services as a result of transformation and this could and should still be achieved.

The Board noted the report on the Transformation Programme completion.