This case study sets out Woking Borough Council’s work to strengthen and embed effective scrutiny, building on earlier support from the Centre for Governance and Scrutiny (CfGS). It reflects on the context, the challenges encountered and the practical steps now being taken to improve impact.
Introduction
By Emily Kelly, Scrutiny and Democratic Services Officer at Woking Borough Council
This work has focused on strengthening Woking’s scrutiny arrangements and setting a clear direction for further improvement. The Council had previously been supported by CfGS to review and develop scrutiny, and there was already momentum to build on.
This project leads on directly from that earlier work. The emphasis has been on consolidating progress, embedding changes in day-to-day practice and supporting scrutiny to operate as effectively as possible.
Background and context
This activity sits within the wider Governance and Assurance workstream, which forms part of Woking’s Improvement and Recovery Plan. Following the earlier CfGS review, scrutiny was recognised as an area making positive progress, but where there was still scope to develop further. It therefore felt timely to build on that momentum and ensure changes had time to embed ahead of the completion of the local government reorganisation process.
I joined the role after the previous CfGS work had concluded. One of my priorities has been to support the next phase of development and ensure we can demonstrate practical improvements in how scrutiny operates.
Context has been important throughout. While Woking’s financial position may be improving, legacy challenges remain, and with local government reorganisation also on the horizon, the timeframe is limited. This has meant keeping the work focused and proportionate, prioritising changes that can deliver impact in the short term and be sustained through transition.
We structured the work as a development project with four key strands:
- Working relationships
- The constitution
- Working practices
- Applied knowledge
We have aimed to focus on targeted, practical improvements. For example, a full constitution review would take several weeks and was not feasible within the time available. CfGS support was particularly helpful in identifying where smaller changes could still make a meaningful difference, enabling us to make the best use of limited time and capacity.
Challenges and opportunities
Challenges
Several challenges have shaped how we approached this work.
Local government reorganisation has been the most significant factor. With elections to the shadow authority due in the coming weeks, there is still uncertainty about future structures, governance arrangements and membership. For example, it is not yet clear how many councillors will sit as ‘double hatters’, or what the final scrutiny remit for each body will be. Any development work, therefore, needed to be flexible enough to remain relevant under different scenarios.
Resourcing has also been a consideration. While the project has not been particularly resource-intensive, it has required capacity to coordinate different strands alongside day-to-day responsibilities. This has meant pacing the work carefully and being realistic about what can be delivered.
Engagement has been challenging at points. In recent months there has been some member fatigue, with a high volume of meetings and briefings, particularly towards the end of the municipal year. At times, this limited capacity for additional activity, something which wasn’t helped by the timing of the project. Some engagement took place over the Christmas period, and interviews fell during the budget cycle, which inevitably reduced response levels. If we were to run the project again, I would definitely schedule this differently.
Opportunities
Despite this, the work also created a number of positive opportunities.
On a personal level, the project has been a valuable development opportunity. Working closely with experienced colleagues, external advisers and commissioners has been helpful in reflecting on progress to date and agreeing realistic next steps.
It has also helped me to develop a clearer view of what effective scrutiny looks like in practice. Hearing different perspectives has been useful – sometimes prompting reflection, and at other times confirming that the direction of travel is right. Overall, it has been encouraging to see shared understanding across those involved about the ingredients of impactful scrutiny.
Initiatives and actions taken
We have only recently finished our review sessions, so implementation is at an early stage. However, several practical actions are already being taken forward.
One action is encouraging committee chairs to hold a short pre-meeting ‘huddle’ (around 10 minutes) immediately beforehand. The purpose is to move away from individual, reactive questions and towards a more strategic approach, where members can agree key lines of enquiry and build on one another’s points. We have already trialled this and it worked well, so we plan to embed it in the new municipal year.
We are also considering greater use of task and finish groups and spotlight reviews. We have used these sparingly to date, but where there are clearly defined topics and a genuine opportunity to add value within the time available, I would like to use them more often. They can support constructive member – officer dialogue in a different setting, and may encourage contributions from those who feel less confident speaking in a formal public meeting.
We also identified scope to strengthen public engagement. While limited public input into scrutiny is fairly common, we have discussed options that would give residents clearer routes to contribute to our work, if supported by colleagues across the organisation. This will need a bit of development, but could be a really positive step.
Feedback also highlighted the need to strengthen understanding of scrutiny across the council. The officer survey included a relatively high number of ‘don’t know’ responses, suggesting we should be clearer about what scrutiny is, why it matters and what we are asking of colleagues when we involve them in the process.
Alongside this, I have been focusing on work programme development. One approach that has worked well is making the process more collaborative: last year, I brought together all potential topics, whether raised by members or officers, into a single list presented with consistent information, so members could make informed choices.
The next step is to streamline further. Agendas can become overly ambitious, so we plan to work with members to prioritise. For example, we’re considering agreeing a ‘top three’ set of topics for each meeting. However, we also need to retain flexibility, particularly during reorganisation, so scrutiny can respond to emerging issues.
Outcomes and impact
Increased member engagement: the project has evidenced a shift away from officer-led improvement, with members showing a clear appetite to take a more active role in shaping how governance and scrutiny develop over time.
Space for reflection: members and officers have had time to reflect on occasions where scrutiny has worked well, and to consider how reviews could be strengthened, for example, by using more strategic lines of enquiry or approaching topics through different styles.
Good news story: all in all, our scrutiny feedback was more positive than we expected. Very few areas were perceived to be ‘not working’ by either Officers or Members, and the shared desire among everyone for scrutiny to be successful was tangible.
Top tips
Key reflections I would share with other councils include:
Avoid running engagement during busy periods like budget setting or over Christmas.
Every scrutiny officer I’ve spoken to is dealing with very similar challenges. If you can, try and build up your network – talking to others really helps.
If someone suggests a more effective way of doing something, take it on board, or at least consider whether it could be beneficial.
Even small changes can help shift the dynamic from officer-led to member-led, and can really help with the relationship building.
You can’t do everything, so focus on what will have the most impact.
Lessons learned
Although it is still early, several lessons are already emerging.
One relates to training. We have delivered sessions on work programme development and questioning skills, but these remain areas where members would welcome further support. This suggests we may need to refresh our approach, for example by placing greater emphasis on peer-to-peer learning and more interactive formats.
I also found it helpful to distinguish between whether scrutiny is ‘done well’ and whether it ‘has impact’. Responses to these two questions differed, particularly among members. This reinforces that good process does not always translate into visible impact. Equally, that impact can sometimes be achieved even when there is room to refine the approach. Both perspectives matter. It may also reflect a wider mindset: Members are rightly focused on continuous improvement, but this can sometimes make progress feel less visible than it is.
Future directions
Our focus now is to implement the recommendations in a way that is practical, proportionate and sustainable.
When developing our action plan, it would not be realistic to try and do everything at once. We are working collaboratively to prioritise what matters most, and then phase improvements so they can be implemented over time.
Local government reorganisation will shape what is achievable over the next year. We have around a year to go, and the focus is on ending well and ensuring that, when we leave Woking, our scrutiny practice is in the best possible place.
A key part of this is ensuring members feel empowered and supported in their role. I want those who move on, whether into a new authority or into different roles, to do so with confidence in their skills and with a sense that they have made the best contribution they could. Officers and councillors have navigated a significant period of change, and it is important that this progress is recognised. I also hope the learning from intervention and reorganisation will inform what happens next. For me, success will mean supporting scrutiny to develop as far as was realistic within the time available, delivering meaningful improvements, and leaving a strong foundation for the future.
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