'Pockets of concern' over Peterborough council's openness and transparency identified by external review

There are “pockets of concern” about Peterborough City Council’s (PCC) openness and transparency among those who work at the authority, an external review has found.

The Centre for Governance and Scrutiny (CfGS), a national consultancy which reviews decision-making at local councils and other organisations, said in a report on PCC that it was “disappointing” to learn that not all councillors and council officers believe it has a commitment to these values.

In an survey completed by around 60 people in summer this year, just six percent said that they strongly agree there is transparency in the way decisions are made, the CfGS said in its report.

While around 45% said they agree, more than 20% – or one in five – said they either disagree or strongly disagree.

The CfGS looked particularly at the council’s methods of decision-making, using its purchase of Sand Martin House, the creation of a temporary car park for the Regional Pool and an award of compensation following a complaint as case studies.

“Across the three decisions, the underpinning reports could have provided additional detail to support the decisions to be made,” the report said.

In relation to acquiring Sand Martin House’s freehold, it added that “we would have expected to see a more detailed public report which identified the source of funding and was accompanied by other options and a strengthened risk assessment”.

The decision to resurface a temporary car park – at a cost of £1m – for the Regional Pool was made by a single cabinet member, it continued, which isn’t in line with the agreed practice that key decisions should be taken by the whole cabinet, it continued.

The “extensive works and landscaping” associated with the project also don’t lend it to being temporary, the report adds, but acknowledges that councillors who called for its implementation did so in order to ensure there was “safe, accessible access for people with disabilities”.

The CfGS also heard that that there are “isolated pockets of sub optimal relationships between officers”, when speaking to staff it said, while allegations of a “toxic culture of bullying and harassment” were made by a councillor within a particular political group during the time it undertook its review – although the rest of the group denies this.

PCC’s relationship with the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Combined Authority (CPCA) could also be strengthened, the report says, particularly with regards to collaboration and scrutinising its decisions.

The report itself, though, was criticised by Cllr Nick Sandford (Liberal Democrats, Paston and Walton) at a council meeting this week as there are a number of “errors of fact” in the CfGS’s findings which “undermines the credibility of the whole report, to some extent”.

The report, for instance, names one of the council’s committees incorrectly and is inaccurate in its assessment of how the city’s deputy mayor is chosen, he said.

Cllr Sandford also took issue with the report’s assertion that there isn’t a strong appetite at PCC to consider changing its current system of governance – i.e. a leader and cabinet system – as the Liberal Democrat group and the Greens are in favour of moving to a system whereby committees make decisions.

Cllr Rylan Ray (Conservatives, Eye, Thorney and Newborough) said that he didn’t think 11 councillors (the total of both parties) out of 60 was particularly significant. Cllr Sandford said he wanted his objection to this wording recorded.

The report also urged PCC to “carefully consider” again a move to all out council elections rather than holding them by thirds, as has been recommended by the independent improvement panel which currently oversees its governance and finance.

The CfGS’s report, currently in draft form, can be found on the council’s website.