Agenda item

To provide an overview of transformation funding allocated between 2023 and 2025, summarising how total investment has translated into organisational improvements, service enhancements, and measurable financial returns. It focuses on the most significant qualitative and quantitative benefits delivered by the transformation programme.

The Committee considered the report (Agenda Item 3) which provided an overview of transformation funding allocated between 2023 and 2025.

The report sought to provide a summary of how total investment had translated into organisational improvements, service enhancements, and measurable financial returns. The report focused on the most significant qualitative and quantitative benefits delivered by the transformation programme.

It was reported that transformation funding had supported major changes to systems, workforce capability, processes, and asset use, enabling the Council to improve service efficiency, strengthen resilience, and deliver better outcomes for residents.

It was noted that a Transformation Policy Development Group would be formed with Members asked to prioritise those projects that should be progressed in order to improve service provision and achieve savings.

The following points were raised in the debate:

·       Members queried why the care homes were not included in the current report. It was confirmed that they remained an ongoing project but were excluded from the table as no savings had yet been realised. However, it was stressed that efforts were ongoing to transfer the care homes to the private sector. Unfortunately, market appetite had been limited.

·       It was noted that there had been just one expression of interest to take on the care homes from the initial market testing exercise, which had been rejected. The offer was amended for the second round, but again this was unsuccessful. It was noted that providers preferred to build new facilities rather than take over existing ones, which would require investment to meet their standards.

·       Members asked whether a risk-averse approach was being taken to avoid adverse impacts on service capacity if care homes were transferred or closed. It was confirmed that the Council would put people first and it would not pursue any deal that risked service quality, even if it meant continuing to pay a premium.

·       The Committee welcomed the savings achieved by repurposing Walnut Close for homeless families and noted the planned use of Chestnut Walk for a similar purpose, highlighting the benefits for families’ access to schools and social networks.

·       It was confirmed that a potential savings target of £1.2M p.a. had been identified from the care homes. Consultancy work had been commissioned to inform a further tender process. Currently, the care homes were showing as a deficit in the Adult Social Care Budget. This was because the budget included an expectation of delivering a saving.

·       Members discussed the importance of including social value benefits in future reports, in addition to financial savings. It was agreed to explore how social value could be evaluated and included in future reports. Recent work around using volunteers in libraries was cited as an example.

·       Officers were asked about grant funding. It was clarified that grant funding was included in the table for completeness, as it represented real money that could have been allocated elsewhere, but it was not a direct cost to council taxpayers.

·       Clarification was sought on the presentation of officer costs in the report. It was explained that the £3.22M for officer costs were not included within the ‘additional funding allocated’ column.

·       Members asked about mechanisms used to track the benefits of transformation projects. It was confirmed that benefits realisation processes had been tightened in response to previous reviews - an update would be provided later in the meeting.

·       It was suggested that future reports should clearly separate grant funding from other funding sources to provide transparency for residents.

·       The Committee queried whether the projected savings of £4.21M were recurring. Officers confirmed these were recurring savings, cost avoidance, and additional income, as set out in approved business cases.

·       It was highlighted that the £3.91M in “additional funding allocated” was a one-off cost, and that the projected savings this would deliver represented good value.

·       In relation to Children’s Social Care placements, it was noted that in the past, the Council had not achieved value for money. However, a new, dedicated Commissioning Team would help address this. The team’s ongoing costs would be incorporated into the revenue base budget, while savings would be recurring.

·       Members suggested that, in future, an extra appendix be added to the revenue budget showing transformation savings from the last five years that were still recurring.

·       In relation to children’s commissioning, it was confirmed that most of the £1.8M would be used to employ officers within Children’s Services, but monitoring of benefits realised would sit within Transformation.

·       The Committee queried the payback period for the TVI projects. Officers stated that the conservative estimate for savings from the Adult Social Care Project was £120,000 per year. It was noted that there was potential for higher savings, so the payback period could be shorter than seven years. The project would also deliver significant social benefits for service users, with improved quality of life, reassurance, and a reduced need for conventional care.

·       Members asked about the Council’s capacity to undertake transformation projects without risking operational stability. The need to balance ambition with organisational capacity was acknowledged - the optimal pace of transformation was a matter of judgement.

·       The Committee asked about the decision-making process for selecting transformation projects. It was explained that Corporate Programme Board reviewed all projects and business cases before allocating funding.

·       Clarification was sought as to whether talent attraction was transformation or HR business as usual. It was confirmed that the employee value proposition was attracting more staff, and agency staff had converted to Council employees, both of which represented a step change rather than BAU activity. The Talent Attraction Team was funded from transformation resources and elements were set up as formal Transformation projects. Funding was part of the £3.22M for officer costs between 2023-2025 – this paid for staff in both Transformation and HR.

·       Further detail was requested in relation to the Business Support Review. It was reported that a staff consultation had concluded in December 2025. Work was ongoing with those affected by the review, which involved detailed, personal conversations. However, officers indicated that an update could be brought to a future meeting.

·       Members discussed the need for clarity and consistency in reporting all transformation projects, including those ongoing or yet to deliver savings, such as care homes and resource centres. Members requested a consolidated list / tracker of all transformation projects to facilitate effective scrutiny.

Action: Officers to develop a consolidated list / tracker of transformation projects (including care homes and resource centres), setting out all costs, savings, and opportunity costs of properties sold (including lost income). This should set out what was transformation and what was delivered by services and should be provided as an appendix to future reports.

·       It was noted that £3.9M mentioned in the report related to future savings, while the £3.22M of officer costs had already been accounted for and savings from projects already delivered were ongoing.

·       Members discussed the need to clearly distinguish between transformation funding, grants, asset sales, and other sources, and to ensure project management costs were transparently reported. It was confirmed that project management costs for care homes were included within the £3.22M transformation funding, and that care homes would show a zero return on investment to date if included as a line in the table.

RESOLVED to note:

·       The overall transformation investment made since 2023.

·       The significant combination of financial savings, cost avoidance, and service improvements delivered through the 2023–2025 programme.

·       The ongoing work required to secure long-term benefits from projects still in delivery.