Councillors will be asked to make any declarations of interest in respect of items on the agenda.

There were no declarations of interest made.

The Board agreed to appoint councillor McLay as Vice-Chair for this particular meeting.

To confirm the minutes of the previous meeting held on 24 September 2025.

The minutes of the meeting held on 24 September 2025 were agreed as a correct record.

To receive reports on business which in the opinion of the Chair, should be brought forward for urgent consideration.

There were no items of Chair’s urgent business.

Councillor John Stephens (Cabinet Member for Strategic Planning and Transport (Deputising for the Leader)) introduced the report and discussed:

a)     Councillor Stephens was attending in place of the Leader of the Council, who was unwell. The Board sent its best wishes to the Leader for a speedy recovery;

b)    The proposal responded to the Government’s statutory invitation to bring forward local government reorganisation proposals for the whole of the existing Devon area. The Council was required to submit its proposal by 28 November 2025, with Scrutiny’s comments feeding into Cabinet and City Council consideration on 24 November 2025;

c)     This was a period of significant uncertainty and concern for many dedicated local government employees across Devon. Their professionalism and commitment to public service during such a challenging time were deeply respected;

d)    The current two?tier system operated by neighbouring authorities created confusion, duplication and artificial barriers. The Government had given the area a rare opportunity to reduce this fragmentation and improve joined?up public services for residents;

e)     Plymouth, Exeter and Torbay had worked together to propose four unitary authorities across the Devon area:

                     i.         an expanded Plymouth;

                   ii.         a new and expanded Exeter;

                  iii.         an expanded Torbay;

                  iv.         a new Devon Coast and Countryside authority;

f)      For Plymouth, the proposal sought a modest boundary extension to include 13 South Hams parishes which already formed part of Plymouth’s functional economic area (places where people worked or learned in Plymouth and regularly used facilities that only a city could provide);

g)     The proposed extension would add approximately 30,000 residents to Plymouth’s existing population of approximately 270,000, bringing the new authority to approximately 300,000 residents;

h)    The proposal was not an “empire building” exercise or “land grab”, but an attempt to correct outdated boundaries which currently cut through growing communities and prevented proper strategic planning for housing, transport and infrastructure;

i)      The existing Joint Local Plan with South Hams demonstrated that these areas already operated as a single functional area and the proposal would make the governance arrangements match the lived reality;

j)      The benefits of the proposed structure went beyond council efficiency and were central to unlocking wider public service reform across health, employment and community safety;

k)     Major programmes, such as the Connect to Work plan and the development of integrated neighbourhood teams for health, could not be delivered by any single agency, but instead required the ability to convene partners such as the NHS, police and skills providers to tackle complex challenges together;

l)      Under the current two?tier structure, there was often no single body capable of exercising that systems leadership effectively across the whole place. The four?unitary model would create authorities with sufficient strategic scale to be credible convening partners, but still local enough to understand and deliver what communities actually needed;

m)   The Council was taking a genuinely developmental approach to community engagement and neighbourhood governance, proposing to establish neighbourhood networks from vesting day, but recognising that empowerment would look different in different  ...  view the full minutes text for item 30.

Councillor Sue Dann (Cabinet Member for Customer Experience, Sport, Leisure and HR and OD) introduced the Plymouth City Council People Strategy and discussed:

a)     The People Strategy had previously been reported to the Scrutiny Management Board as “in development” and was now presented in draft form for pre?decision scrutiny prior to Cabinet consideration in December 2025;

b)    Development of the strategy had been highly collaborative, with over 300 conversations undertaken by the Service Director for HR and Organisational Development across all levels and directorates, making it the most co?produced People Strategy the Council had brought forward;

c)     The strategy reflected the significant challenges and opportunities facing the Council as an employer, including Local Government Reorganisation (LGR), the defence deal, the Team Plymouth programme, plans for a new town, an ageing workforce, persistent recruitment and retention issues, and anticipated changes arising from digital technology and new ways of working;

d)    The Council’s workforce represented the “front?facing public service” of Plymouth, with every resident affected by how teams performed, whether through refuse collection, planning applications or other services, and that it was therefore essential to look after staff as well as residents;

e)     Management and leadership development programmes had already enabled over 100 staff to achieve Level 5 qualifications, with a further cohort in progress, and a Level 3 programme underway to “grow our own” talent to address recruitment, retention and training challenges;

f)      The Council had invested in its Digital Academy, with nearly 50 staff undertaking AI and digital qualifications, ensuring the workforce was already looking towards the future;

g)     The strategy was firmly rooted in “Plymouth as a place”, reflecting the fact that most staff both worked and lived in the city and therefore directly benefited from improvements to services and outcomes;

h)    The strategy and supporting report before the Board set out the context, consultation findings and key proposals. The draft had already been discussed at Cabinet Planning and welcomed by Trade Union representatives, one of whom had commented that a positive shift in learning, development and culture was already noticeable among staff.

Chris Squire (Service Director for HR and Organisational Development) added:

a)     Design work had been undertaken in?house to align the strategy with the Council’s updated corporate branding, including the “Horizons are bigger here” imagery and contour?style lines based on the footprint of Council buildings;

b)    The document deliberately used photographs of real staff rather than stock images, with any remaining stock images being replaced once appropriate staff images and permissions were confirmed;

c)     The strategy had been shaped by workshops and discussions with managers and staff at all levels, across all directorates, alongside ongoing engagement with Trade Unions, ensuring that the document reflected the lived experiences and priorities of the workforce;

d)    The strategy was closely aligned with the city’s Economic Strategy, including major planned investment at Devonport Dockyard, which created substantial opportunities for Plymouth, but also posed acute workforce and pay?related challenges as the Council competed for skills;

e)  ...  view the full minutes text for item 31.

Councillor Sue Dann (Cabinet Member for Customer Experience, Sport, Leisure and HR and OD) introduced the City Help & Support report and discussed:

a)     The item had been brought to the Scrutiny Management Board as part of preparations for future budget planning, as City Help & Support would significantly influence the Council’s approach to service delivery over the coming years;

b)    There had been a sharp rise in demand and complexity of residents requiring help and support over recent years, which continued to place extraordinary pressure on Council services;

c)     Adult social care, children’s social care, homelessness and SEND were experiencing escalating costs, and these pressures were structural and cumulative rather than cyclical, with new demand added each year and little scope for costs to fall in the next;

d)    Rising complexity in adult social care meant more people were entering the system and staying longer, resulting in higher per?person costs and greater overall pressure on budgets;

e)     Children’s social care was facing unprecedented increases in placement costs, including high?cost residential care, with the Council often having limited control over market pricing or sudden changes in the needs of children entering care;

f)      Homelessness and temporary accommodation demand continued to rise due to the national housing shortage, with temporary accommodation and bed and breakfast usage now a significant and growing budget pressure;

g)     These demands were affecting people, not numbers, and the challenge could not be viewed solely as a financial problem. It required earlier interventions and more cohesive support to improve outcomes for individuals and families;

h)    Although the Council already delivered positive preventative work, the scale of demand meant the organisation required a new, collaborative, data?driven approach to shift the balance towards prevention;

i)      The City Help & Support programme would initially focus on internal Council activity but would, as it matured, expand to work more closely with partners;

j)      The programme aimed to ensure people were identified earlier, supported earlier, and prevented from entering high?cost crisis services where possible, enabled by better data, improved pathways and multi?disciplinary working;

k)     Early identification required drawing together information held across services including schools, housing, health and family support, to provide a more holistic view of risk and need;

l)      The approach aligned with the People Strategy, Children’s Hubs, Health and Wellbeing Hubs, and new data insights being developed across the Council, all of which would contribute to stronger preventative work.

Thomas Fowler (Programme Manager) added:

m)   City Help & Support was a critical programme with a dual objective: improving outcomes for households and saving money through earlier, more effective intervention, creating a “win?win” for residents and the Council;

n)    The scale of the challenge required a whole?system response, as Plymouth residents faced increasingly complex circumstances, including trauma, poverty, insecure housing and rising social care needs;

o)    City Help & Support built upon a strong foundation of strategic work already underway across the Council, aiming to bring together previously separate initiatives into a coherent, preventative system;

p)    Extensive staff  ...  view the full minutes text for item 32.

Ian Trisk?Grove (Service Director for Finance) introduced the Financial Monitoring Report, Month 6 and discussed:

a)     The Month 6 position showed an adverse full?year forecast of £8.754 million, representing a slight deterioration from Month 5, and approximately £1.9 million worse than the position at the same point in the previous financial year;

b)    Directorate?level pressures were detailed in the report, with adult social care continuing to experience increasing demand, including a step?change first noted at Month 4, and underlying increases in care home placements and domiciliary care costs contributing to a pressure of approximately £2.2 million;

c)     Community Connections (homelessness services) continued to face pressures due to the availability and speed of securing temporary accommodation, although demand was currently being managed within the directorate, with a reported pressure of approximately £0.9 million;

d)    Children’s Services continued to experience significant pressures relating to placements, creating a Year?to?Date pressure of approximately £3.7 million, though active work within the directorate was being undertaken to manage each placement on a line?by?line basis to ensure the position was carefully controlled;

e)     Customer and Corporate Services held a pressure of approximately £1.3 million, arising from facilities management work required following building surveys, repairs and maintenance, and an overspend relating to the Directly Elected Mayor referendum of approximately £0.17 million;

f)      Savings delivery remained a strong focus, with £6.5 million achieved to date, £3.7 million in progress, and £2.2 million identified as unachievable, the majority of the latter relating to Energy?from?Waste assumptions;

g)     The capital programme now totalled £372.311 million, with approximately £17.5 million reprofiled out of the current year to future years within the five?year programme, reflecting normal in?year adjustments as project timelines became clearer;

h)    Early reprofiling of capital spend supported improved decision?making by enabling better forecasting of the revenue implications of the capital programme, particularly in relation to treasury management and borrowing requirements;

i)      The Month 6 report represented the Council’s formal half?year position and highlighted the challenge facing the organisation during the remainder of the financial year.

In response to questions, the Board discussed:

j)      Concerns about the likelihood of achieving a balanced position by year?end, with clarification sought on the level of confidence officers held that the forecast overspend could be reduced to a manageable level. It was clarified that significant work was underway across the Corporate Management Team, in partnership with Councillor Lowry and Cabinet, to identify in?year mitigations including tighter service?level budget management, engagement with staff on deferral of discretionary spend, and increased visibility on the most significant drivers of demand;

k)     Success of the City Help & Support programme would shape medium and long?term demand trajectories, but in?year efforts remained essential to address immediate financial risks;

l)      The role of treasury management, reprofiled capital expenditure and other financial levers in helping address the in?year position, though officers reiterated that confidence levels at Month 6 could not be quantified due to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 33.

Ian Trisk?Grove (Service Director for Finance) introduced the Budget Scrutiny Plan and discussed:

a)     The paper set out the proposals for the 2026/27 Budget Scrutiny process;

b)    The proposal was informed by how budget scrutiny had operated successfully in previous years, with a balance between strategic oversight and sufficient depth for areas under the greatest financial pressure;

c)     The proposals recognised the importance of wider organisational transformation, including the use of AI and other enabling programmes, which were expected to support more robust budget management over the medium to long term;

d)    The paper enabled the Board to comment on the proposed format, schedule and focus areas for the Budget Scrutiny sessions planned for January.

In response to discussion, the Board discussed:

e)     Providing discretion to the Chair and Vice?Chair to adjust the timetable during Budget Scrutiny so that areas experiencing the greatest risk or overspend received proportionately more time, while areas of lesser concern received shorter scrutiny periods;

f)      Support from members for the proposed approach, ensuring scrutiny time was focused where it was most needed;

g)     Confirmation that provisional diary holds were in place for 21 and 22 January, subject to confirmation with members;

h)    The need for early publication of finalised dates to allow councillors to arrange annual leave or adjust commitments, noting challenges in previous years when papers had been issued close to the meeting dates;

i)      Requests for budget papers and supporting documents to be published in sufficient time for detailed review, emphasising the scale and complexity of the budget and the need to read appendices thoroughly before the January sessions;

j)      Confirmation that the public consultation had launched the previous day would run for six weeks and that the results would form part of the final budget pack available to Scrutiny;

k)     Reassurance that the consultation sought input from a broad range of residents, including service users, and that the Council was directing communication efforts to maximise reach so Scrutiny would have sight of the widest possible range of public feedback.

The Board agreed:

1. To support the proposed structure for the 2026/27 Budget Scrutiny process as outlined in the report;

2. To delegate authority to the Chair and Vice?Chair to adjust the timings allocated to individual scrutiny sessions, ensuring that areas of greatest financial pressure receive proportionately more time;

3. Action: To request early confirmation of the scrutiny dates and timely publication of all Budget Scrutiny papers to enable members to prepare fully.

Councillor Penberthy (Cabinet Member for Housing, Cooperative Development and Communities) introduced the Corporate Plan Performance Report and discussed:

a)     The next full six?month Corporate Plan Performance Report was scheduled for Cabinet consideration in December2025, and therefore a complete report was not yet available for Scrutiny;

b)    In place of a full report, the Scrutiny Management Board had been provided with a short update confirming that officers were in the process of preparing the six?month report for Cabinet.

In response to questions, the Board discussed:

a)     That the substantive performance report would be considered at the next meeting cycle once the Cabinet report had been published;

b)    Members looked forward to receiving the completed six?month performance report in December and to reviewing progress against the Corporate Plan at that time.

The Board agreed:

1. To note the update provided.

Ian Trisk?Grove (Service Director for Finance) introduced the 2025/26 Quarter Two Risk Management Update and discussed:

a)     The purpose of the report was to provide visibility of the current Strategic Risk Register and to outline the reset undertaken during the summer to improve the clarity, language and usability of the strategic risks;

b)    The updated format aimed to make risks easier to interpret and would support the next phase of work to strengthen operational risk management across the organisation, ensuring strategic and operational risks aligned more effectively;

c)     Future quarterly reports to the Scrutiny Management Board would now show changes in risk scores, direction of travel, controls and mitigations, enabling members to track movements and understand how risks were being managed over time;

d)    The revised approach was intended to support better organisational understanding of risks, encourage improved ownership and provide clearer oversight for Scrutiny.

In response to questions, the Board discussed:

a)     Thanks for the improved presentation of the Strategic Risk Register, noting that the updated layout made the information significantly easier to read;

e)     Willingness to explore alternative formatting options, such as presenting the spreadsheet in portrait single?page extracts or another accessible format;

f)      Acknowledgement from the Board that the revised reporting framework would support clearer discussion and oversight in future meetings.

The Panel agreed:

1. To note the 2025/26 Quarter Two Risk Management Update.

The Board agreed to note the Forward Plan of Key Decisions.

To receive updates from individual Chairs of their respective Scrutiny Committees and associated work programmes.

The Chair introduced the Scrutiny Management Board Work Programme and discussed:

a)     Work was ongoing to schedule the completion of the Select Committee Review on Cycling and Food Delivery in the City Centre, with efforts underway to coordinate availability of all contributors.

Councillor Murphy added:

b)    The Health and Adult Social Care Overview and Scrutiny Committee scheduled for 14 October 2025 had been deferred due to delays with an external report.

Councillor Ricketts added:

c)     The Natural Infrastructure and Growth Panel continued progression through its five thematic pillars;

d)    Recent scrutiny sessions had examined Inclusive Growth, including discussion of the city’s new branding and differing member views regarding its visual identity and messaging;

e)     The Committee undertook pre?Cabinet scrutiny of the Plan for Nature and People, contributing to policy refinement;

f)      Members had attended an external visit to Tinside, which provided valuable insight into marine?related issues affecting the city.

Councillor Coker added:

g)     The Housing and Community Services Scrutiny Panel had received a report on Building Bridges to Opportunity, reviewed ongoing work on homelessness and the wider implications for communities and service capacity, and undertaken scrutiny on City Centre Car Parking in the context of the city centre’s regeneration and future land?use changes.

The SMB Chair reminded Panel Chair’s that written update reports were required when they were unable to provide a verbal update.

For discussion of items on the Scrutiny Management Board’s Work Programme.

The Board agreed to note the work programme.

The Board agreed to note the progress of the Action Log.