Introduction
This case study outlines Woking Borough Council’s journey to strengthen and modernise its scrutiny function, undertaken in collaboration with the Centre for Governance and Scrutiny (CfGS). It reflects on the challenges encountered, the actions taken, and the lessons learned as the Council worked to enhance the effectiveness of scrutiny in the context of financial pressures, political transition, and organisational change.
A pivotal moment in the process was an all-member workshop, which helped to reframe the findings of the review not as shortcomings, but as opportunities for development and improvement. The session fostered a constructive and forward-looking approach, focusing on increasing transparency, building stronger member ownership, and enhancing the overall impact of scrutiny.
Throughout this case study, Becky Capon and Frank Jeffrey offer practical insights and reflections to support other councils navigating similar circumstances. Their experiences highlight the importance of clear committee structures, the benefits of prioritisation, and the value of effective timetabling in creating a scrutiny function that is both resilient and responsive to evolving demands.
Background and Context
By Becky Capon, Democratic Services Manager and Frank Jeffrey, Head of Democratic Services
This work emerged in response to a number of factors, including the Council’s financial position, which highlighted the need to strengthen governance and oversight. As part of this, the scrutiny function was identified as a key area for development, with a recognition that its potential was not being fully realised.
The aim was to take a step back and reflect on our current approach, exploring best practice and considering how it could be adapted to meet Woking’s specific needs. Early in the process, it became apparent that scrutiny was not always focused on the most timely or strategic issues, and that there were opportunities to improve both the way it was structured and how it was delivered.
The review therefore focused on enhancing the overall effectiveness of scrutiny, looking at how officers and members could work more collaboratively, and how the function could be better aligned with the Council’s priorities. It was about fostering shared ownership, improving coordination, and ensuring that scrutiny plays a meaningful role in supporting informed, transparent, and accountable decision-making.
Challenges and Opportunities
Challenges
Forward planning and Committee structures
One of the key findings from the review was the need to improve the timing and focus of scrutiny activity. It became clear that greater emphasis was needed on forward planning to ensure that scrutiny was aligned with the Council’s priorities and able to add value at the right stages of decision-making.
A related challenge involved rethinking the committee structure itself. Previously, scrutiny was delivered through a single committee, but we recognised the benefits of a more focused approach. As a result, we transitioned to three committees, each aligned with a specific directorate. This allowed for more targeted scrutiny and clearer lines of accountability.
To support this new structure, we introduced an annual work programming event, bringing members together to identify and prioritise topics for the year ahead. This collaborative approach has helped ensure that scrutiny is member-led, strategically focused, and supported by officers who can provide guidance on the suitability and timing of proposed topics.
New and inexperienced councillors
The Council also experienced a significant political shift, resulting in a large number of newly elected members, many of whom were new to local government. While this brought fresh perspectives and energy, it also presented a learning curve in terms of understanding the specific roles, responsibilities, and processes within the local authority context.
During engagement sessions, it became evident that some members were drawing on their professional or business backgrounds to inform their approach to scrutiny. While this diversity of experience is valuable, it also highlighted the importance of ongoing support and development to help members navigate the distinct nature of public sector governance.
By recognising these challenges early on, we were able to tailor our approach, ensuring that both new and experienced councillors were supported in contributing effectively to a scrutiny function that is both robust and responsive.
Opportunities
Increasing transparency
As part of the recommendations arising from the scrutiny review, we took the opportunity to reflect on the role and effectiveness of our task and finish groups and working groups, many of which operated under the scrutiny committees. While these groups had been in place for some time and were originally established to support detailed exploration of specific issues, it became clear that their work was not always visible to the wider membership or the public, which limited transparency and accountability. At their peak, there were between 10 and 15 such groups, but over time, many had become less focused, with limited outputs or clear outcomes. Following careful consideration, we made the decision to streamline this structure, winding down the majority of these groups to ensure that scrutiny activity remained purposeful, transparent, and aligned with the Council’s priorities. This change has been implemented smoothly, with no significant concerns raised by members. In fact, the revised approach has helped to sharpen the focus of scrutiny and improve clarity around decision-making processes. One group, the Finance Working Group, has been retained, where it continues to provide valuable oversight in a clearly defined area.
Strengthening scrutiny
The intention behind introducing the new three-committee scrutiny model was to ensure that scrutiny remained focused, effective, and better aligned with the Council’s strategic priorities. From the outset, it was important to be clear that this was not simply about replacing working groups with additional committee meetings but about creating a more structured and transparent approach to scrutiny.
Initially, each of the three scrutiny committees was scheduled to meet three times a year, which was considered a manageable starting point. However, as the year progressed, it became evident that additional meetings were occasionally necessary to respond to emerging issues of significance. This flexibility has allowed the committees to remain responsive and maintain the quality of their oversight.
In parallel, the introduction of a new Employment Committee has added to the overall number of evening meetings. While this has increased the overall meeting schedule, the revised structure has proven effective. By remaining adaptable, we’ve been able to ensure that scrutiny continues to play a meaningful role in supporting good governance and informed decision-making.
Initiatives and Actions Taken
- Introducing scrutiny pre and post meetings
We introduced pre-meetings with scrutiny chairs to review the agenda ahead of each committee session. This provided an opportunity to raise questions in advance, allowing officers to address any issues outside the formal meeting. Following each session, the Scrutiny Officer and the relevant senior officer from the directorate meet with the chair to reflect on what went well and to identify any follow-up actions. This approach has helped maintain momentum and ensure a continued focus on outcomes.
- Embedding senior officer involvement
Historically, securing consistent senior officer engagement in scrutiny had been a challenge. Under the new arrangements, each committee now has a designated member of the Corporate Leadership Team who works closely with the Scrutiny Officer to shape the work programme, develop agendas, and attend all meetings. Their active involvement has significantly strengthened the scrutiny process and improved alignment with strategic priorities.
- Aligning committees with directorate areas
The restructuring into three scrutiny committees, each aligned with a specific directorate, has made it easier to secure meaningful engagement from senior officers. Directors now participate in committees directly related to their service areas, making discussions more relevant and impactful for both members and officers.
- Managing overlaps and clarifying roles
In a few instances, there have been overlaps in committee responsibilities—for example, contracts that could fall under both finance and housing. In such cases, we’ve either brought the item to both committees or agreed on which committee should take the lead. While not a major issue, it’s something we’ve managed proactively to ensure clarity and avoid duplication.
- Creating the chairs’ forum
We also established a Chairs’ Forum as a regular space for all scrutiny chairs and vice-chairs to meet. The aim was to improve coordination and ensure awareness of developments across the executive and the Employment Committee. Although originally intended to be informal with minimal officer involvement, it became clear that more structure was needed. We now have formal agendas and notes, which has improved coordination and helped manage different working styles across the committees.
Outcomes and Impact
- Stronger focus on financial scrutiny – A key driver for change was the Council’s financial position, which had been highlighted in external reviews as an area requiring more robust oversight. In response, scrutiny committees have placed a stronger emphasis on financial matters, including contracts and related governance issues. This renewed focus has helped address previous concerns and introduced greater rigour into financial decision-making.
- Raised profile and awareness of scrutiny – We have made a concerted effort to elevate the visibility and understanding of scrutiny across the organisation. Members are now more aware of its purpose and value, and we have worked to embed that awareness among senior officers as well. A revised guide to report writing now includes references to scrutiny, and a new reporting timetable is being developed to ensure scrutiny is recognised as a key stage in the decision-making process. It is increasingly seen as a vital mechanism for accountability and continuous improvement.
- Growing demand for member training – There has been a noticeable increase in requests for training and development, particularly from scrutiny chairs and vice-chairs. Members have expressed a desire for support in areas such as chairing meetings and scrutinising complex topics. In response, we are working with the Centre for Governance and Scrutiny (CfGS) to develop tailored training opportunities. This growing demand reflects a positive culture shift, with members actively seeking to build their skills and confidence.
- Tangible impact on decision-making – Scrutiny is beginning to have a more direct influence on Council decisions. Committees have made formal recommendations to the Executive and, in some cases, to full Council. These have included input on company reports and major projects, with some committees proposing alternative recommendations. This kind of pre-decision scrutiny demonstrates that the function is becoming more effective and impactful.
- Strengthening the audit function – Alongside improvements to scrutiny, we have also focused on strengthening the Audit and Governance Committee, what we’ve referred to as “scrutiny with a small ‘s’.” Previously, the committee had been criticised for limited engagement with financial reporting. We have since invested in training for Audit Committee members to help them better understand their responsibilities and improve their ability to scrutinise financial information effectively.
- Challenges with meeting scheduling – One area that has presented ongoing challenges is the consistency of meeting scheduling. There have been instances where scrutiny meetings had to be rescheduled due to clashes with other key reporting cycles, such as budget planning. These issues often stemmed from the original timetable not being fully aligned across departments. We are now taking a paper to the Chief Executive’s Group to improve coordination and ensure better alignment going forward.
- Improving coordination with the executive – While coordination between scrutiny and the Executive has improved, there is still scope to strengthen this relationship further. We continue to explore ways to enhance alignment and communication throughout the year, ensuring scrutiny remains constructive and well-integrated into the wider governance framework.
- Ongoing internal review – To evaluate the effectiveness of the new arrangements, we launched an internal review involving councillors, officers, and commissioners. Feedback was gathered through a structured questionnaire covering scrutiny and broader committee changes. The findings will be presented to the Finance and Resources Scrutiny Committee and full Council in July. While we anticipate a range of views, the review will provide valuable insights to inform the next phase of development.
Top tips
Transitioning from a single, overarching scrutiny committee to three focused committees has improved our approach. This structure allows for clearer alignment with directorate responsibilities and enables more targeted, manageable agendas.
Creating a regular forum for chairs and vice-chairs has enhanced coordination and improved visibility across committees. The more structured and consistent this space becomes (with agendas and follow-up) the more effective it is in supporting collaboration and shared understanding.
One of our biggest challenges has been the frequent rescheduling of meetings. It’s disrupted attendance at Committees and forward planning. We’re now working to ensure the calendar is realistic and respected from the outset.
Holding regular pre- and post-meetings with scrutiny chairs has strengthened ownership of agendas and improved follow-through on actions. This approach has helped ensure scrutiny remains focused, purposeful, and outcome-oriented.
Lessons Learned
One of the key lessons has been the challenge of balancing consistency in report writing with the need for flexibility. In response to member feedback, we revised our report templates to make them clearer and more user-friendly. However, given that reports are produced by officers across a wide range of service areas, achieving a uniform style has proven difficult. While some councillors prefer detailed analysis, others favour more concise summaries. We’ve learned that no single format will meet all preferences, but a well-structured template supported by clear guidance can help strike the right balance.
Another important learning point has been the value of a stable and well-coordinated meeting calendar. Over the past year, frequent changes to meeting dates, often due to the late availability of key reports, particularly budget papers, have caused disruption and frustration. This highlighted the need to treat the scrutiny calendar as a priority, with improved coordination between finance, executive, and scrutiny teams to minimise last-minute changes and maintain the integrity of the process.
To address these challenges, we’ve been working to strengthen internal processes. A draft paper to the Corporate Leadership Team (CLT) outlines proposed improvements to scheduling and report preparation. A key focus is ensuring that reports are signed off in good time and submitted to committees with appropriate officer support. This will help avoid situations where reports are submitted late and the relevant officers are unavailable to respond to questions, ultimately improving both the quality and reliability of information presented to members.
Finally, we’ve recognised that training is not a luxury, it’s essential. Despite the loss of a dedicated training budget, we’ve continued to deliver high-quality member development through partners such as the Centre for Governance and Scrutiny (CfGS) and the Local Government Association (LGA). Feedback has been overwhelmingly positive. With many new councillors and evolving expectations of scrutiny, ongoing training has proven vital in building confidence, capability, and a shared understanding of effective governance.
Future Directions
Looking ahead, the most significant factor shaping our next steps is the anticipated local government reorganisation. The pace of change is rapid, and at this stage, there remains considerable uncertainty about what the coming months will bring. While borough elections are currently scheduled, it is increasingly unlikely they will proceed as planned, and county elections have already been deferred once. This has created a degree of uncertainty across the organisation.
We also await clarity on the future of our teams, structures, and even our physical premises. Despite this, our focus remains on continuing the progress we’ve made, particularly in strengthening scrutiny, and maintaining momentum wherever possible.
Although the long-term future of the current authority is uncertain, we are hopeful that the learning and improvements developed at Woking will inform and positively influence whatever new arrangements emerge. While this is undoubtedly a challenging and transitional period, we remain committed to making the most of the opportunities it presents and ensuring that the gains we’ve made are not lost in the process of change.
NOTE
At CfGS, we support local government improvement by working closely with councils to highlight the great work being done, including case studies of recent improvement activity funded by Government.
As part of this support, we produce case studies to share the lessons learned from these projects, helping other authorities benefit from the insights gained. These case studies are a collaborative effort between CfGS and the councils involved, and while they provide valuable perspectives, they are not formal evaluations of the work’s impact. Instead, they aim to inspire and inform other authorities with real examples of progress that can have a wider impact across the sector.
All case studies