Agenda item

 

To receive a presentation on the development of the Neighbourhood Leadership Strategy, following the Workshop held with IPSC Members in April 2026.

 

 

At the Chair’s invitation, Chris Paddock, Interim Director of Policy, Strategy & Engagement (Interim Director) introduced the item and explained that the former Thriving Neighbourhoods Strategy had reached the end of its lifespan (2018-2025), which provided an opportunity to review the council’s approach to neighbourhood working and how best to make residents feel more connected to council services.

 

The former Thriving Neighbourhoods Strategy had created a new model of working and had enabled Councillors to play a more prominent role in their localities, to have more control over ward budgets and to exert more influence over the local provision of services.

This model of neighbourhood working had been praised in a 2023 Local Government Association (LGA) peer review and recognised as an example of best practise nationally.

 

The Interim Director explained that the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Act had introduced a new statutory duty on local authorities to establish appropriate arrangements for effective neighbourhood governance. The aim of this was to move decision making closer to residents so that it would be led by the people who most understand local needs.

 

From this position of strength and proven good practice, the council had decided to develop two strategies to sit alongside each other to support neighbourhood working. A new iteration of the Thriving Neighbourhood Strategy would be presented to Cabinet in December and would set out more wide-ranging plans for how the council intended to work with partners to deliver greater impact in neighbourhoods. The Neighbourhood Leadership Strategy would be introduced first and was due to be presented to Cabinet in early July 2026.

 

The council had worked with Councillors from all parties and officers across the council to develop a more ambitious strategy which would place Councillors, in their role as local leaders, at the heart of a more responsive, resident-led approach to local government.

 

The Interim Director explained that, to underpin this strength-based approach, a set of characteristics of the “21^st Century Rotherham Councillor” had been co-produced. Ward priorities, local budgeting process and Neighbourhood Coordinators would continue to be in place but would be informed by better evidence. Councillors would be given more opportunity to advocate for their residents and communicate local sentiments to the council to enable council services to be more responsive. All Councillors who wanted to participate would be supported to maximise their role as neighbourhood leaders, to help places thrive and to support Rotherham’s residents to live well.

 

The Interim Director took Members through the presentation on the Neighbourhood Leadership Strategy 2026-2032 (Strategy), highlighting the following points:-

 

Co-Production

·       The Strategy had been developed via co-production with Councillors and officers. A workshop had been held with Members of IPSC and OSMB in April 2026 to obtain their views and opinions on what the Strategy should cover.

·       The views of officers across all services at the council were also sought to create the framework for the two strategies and to consider the relationship between Councillors and council services and how they can work together to respond better to local needs.

·       There was reported to be strong support for the Neighbourhoods Team and the role that Neighbourhood Coordinators play in supporting Councillors. However, there was a feeling that more could be done to support Councillors to have influence over services, both internally and externally. The top area of priority would be improved communication between departments within the council and also, between specific services and Councillors. It was hoped that the Strategy would help to address this.

·       In line with government sentiments, it was clear that Councillors wanted to put residents at the heart of this work and that this would be key to the successful operation of the strategy.

 

Vision & Ambition

·       The Strategy would seek to build on the already strong foundations of neighbourhood working in Rotherham. It would give Councillors an enhanced role as conveners and conduits for residents’ aspirations, helping the council to be more ready to listen, learn and respond to residents’ needs.

·       The anticipated outcome of this would be that people felt more connected to the council, building trust and agency in all of Rotherham’s neighbourhoods.

 

Key Changes

·       The new Strategy would provide a more distinct focus on the role of Councillors, not just within Rotherham, but also within the regional context. In designing the Strategy, the council had consulted with SYMCA, who confirmed that they also wanted to work towards a position where local Councillors had a distinct role within the regional system.

·       Fundamental to the success of the Strategy would be a stronger and more responsive connection between neighbourhoods and council services. 

·       To enable Councillors to succeed as neighbourhood leaders, more support would be provided to help Councillors to develop their skills. Stronger arrangements for monitoring and tracking success under the Strategy would also be developed.

 

The “21^st Century Rotherham Councillor”

·       Councillors and officers had worked together to come up with a list of characteristics and attributes that they felt defined the “21^st Century Councillor” from a Rotherham-specific perspective. These 10 characteristics were set out in the Strategy itself and were provided in the presentation at page 58 of the Agenda pack.

 

Action Areas

To deliver on the aims of the Strategy, six action areas were identified, as follows

1.    Ward Priorities and Plan

The intention was to continue the commitmentto produce ward priorities and plans every two years, but to improve and enhance the data and evidence used to do that. Alongside this, new protocols would be developed to link the enhanced evidence base to future service delivery and future tracking of impact.

2.    Devolved Ward Budgets

A number of different funds were already devolved to wards, but it was intended to enhance ward budgets via more intensive support around seed and match funding. This could offer Councillors the opportunity to explore possible new approaches in engaging residents in funding decisions.

3.    Leadership in Support of Council and Partner Services

It was considered fundamental to establish stronger links between neighbourhoods, residents and council services. This would also apply to external services such as the police, health partners, the voluntary and community sector and educational partners. The intention would be to empower the Neighbourhoods Team to have greater influence over the way that council services were delivered and to have strong expectations of quicker and definitive responses and routes of escalation.

4.    Leadership Development

Ongoing support for Councillors around leadership development would be required. Leadership training and coaching was being developed with the Democratic Services and Member Support teams. It was hoped that a stronger team mentality could be developed between Neighbourhood Coordinators and Councillors so that they could support each other in their roles.

5.    The Role of Residents in Neighbourhood Leadership

The aim would be for residents to feel that Councillors and Neighbourhood Coordinators were working to provide them with a stronger sense of influence and agency within the areas they live in. Work was underway with colleagues in Communications to support delivery of this message and to consider how best Councillors could best feed residents’ views back into service delivery.

6.    Monitoring Impact and Feeding Back

This had been identified as a weakness in the previous strategy. As a result, part of the early stages of delivery of this Strategy would be to build stronger structures and processes to supportively reflect on performance and incorporate feedback from residents to support improvement.

 

The Chair thanked officers for the presentation and invited Members of IPSC to raise questions and queries on Neighbourhood Leadership Strategy, and in the ensuing question and answer session, the following points were raised:-

 

The Chair asked how the council would ensure that the Strategy delivered tangible outcomes and not just improved processes. In response, the Interim Director explained that the ward plans and priorities would be key in mapping out local need and aspiration. These would also provide key indicators against which tangible outcomes could be assessed. The Interim Director commented that it was hoped that increased trust from residents in the council, democracy and their representation at local level would be a broader tangible outcome.

 

The Chair commented that outcomes under the Strategy were of crucial importance and asked how the council would ensure that all officers across the council, not just the Neighbourhood Coordinators, would pay heed to the aims of the Strategy.

 

In response, the Interim Director confirmed that improved processes of escalation and methods of capturing feedback would be implemented to support delivery. Martin Hughes, the Head of Neighbourhoods (Head of Neighbourhoods) further commented that once the Strategy had been approved by Cabinet, service would immediately embark on setting up the protocols and frameworks to support delivery of the Strategy. For example, meetings with senior leadership across all Directorates would be planned over the summer months, with a view to filtering information regarding the Strategy down to all teams across the council. The Head of Neighbourhoods reminded Councillors that a new Director of Policy, Strategy and Engagement had started at the council that week, but it was hoped that this would not adversely affect the timelines for implementation of the Strategy.

 

In a further comment, the Interim Director confirmed that the Strategy had already been discussed with the Senior Leadership Team at the council and the expectations on council services under the Strategy had been made very clear.

 

Councilllor Beck commented that whilst the new Strategy represented a good aggregation of existing good practice in neighbourhood working in Rotherham, it didn’t demonstrate a huge evolution from the previous strategy. Councillor Beck did acknowledge that the development might become more evident once delivery was underway.

 

The Interim Director agreed that the Strategy set out the aspirations and that that the improved outcomes would be evident via the delivery. The Interim Director further explained that the second part of this approach, the new Thriving Neighbourhoods Strategy, would provide more detail on how Councillors and council services should deal with specific issues within Rotherham neighbourhoods.

 

The Chair commented that one change that had been recommended in the Member Workshop on the Strategy was that a casework-type system be introduced for neighbourhood issues, which would represent a development from previous practice.

 

The Head of Neighbourhoods commented that as the council was starting from a position of strength with regard to neighbourhood working, the Strategy sought to take the next steps to build on this. A key area of development which had come out of the Member Workshop and survey, was a strengthened role for Neighbourhood Coordinators to be advocates for Councillors and to be able to push for rapid responses on issues. To assist with this, service would look to implement a casework-type system to more easily track and escalate issues. This would support the Strategy’s aims of increased communication and joint working.

 

The Head of Neighbourhoods explained that it had not been possible to share the full draft Strategy with Councillors prior to the meeting, due to the timing of the publication of the Cabinet Report (Members had been provided with a paper copy of the Strategy in the meeting). The Strategy set out an increased expectation on council services to communicate with Councillors on issues/events/planned works affecting their wards. It also provided for deeper engagement with residents and for wider promotion and understanding of the role of a Councillor, within communities and the council itself, via internal and external communications campaigns. Further detail on the content of the Strategy could be found within the Cabinet report. 

 

Councillor Thorp commented that whilst they agreed with the aims and aspirations set out within the Strategy, they were of the opinion that more work needed to be done by the council to involve Councillors with the development of strategies at an earlier stage. Councillor Thorp mentioned a number of recent strategies that had been put before Cabinet without any prior consultation with Members.

 

The Interim Director confirmed that the success of the Strategy would, in part, depend on changes in behaviour and established systems. It was hoped that the introduction of a casework-type system and clearer routes of escalation would help with this, but the Interim Director acknowledged that this could be challenging.

 

In response, Councillor Thorp expressed the opinion that for the Strategy to be successful, there needed to be a culture change from the top down i.e from Cabinet and the Senior Leadership team within the council. The Interim Director pointed out that the attributes of the “21^st Century Rotherham Councillor” would apply to Cabinet members as well.

 

Councillor Bennett-Sylvester agreed that the Strategy was evolutionary rather than revolutionary but acknowledged that neighbourhood working in the last 10 years had vastly improved from the days of Area Assemblies. Councillor Bennett-Sylvester raised the issue of resource to fund the aspirations of the Strategy, given that ward budgets had not increased and in real terms, were decreasing year on year. Councillor Bennett-Sylvester expressed frustration with the way that funding flowed out to services disproportionately between wards and suggested that Strategic Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) monies could be better used towards neighbourhood needs.

 

Councillor Bennett-Sylvester complimented service on the strengths-based working training that had been delivered in 2025 and requested that this be revisited as It would help Councillors to understand how, as neighbourhood leaders, they could help to empower and enable residents to feel confident to do things for themselves.

 

The Interim Director responded on the resourcing pressures and agreed that for some wards, the funding would not be enough. The primary mechanism under the Strategy would be to enable services to be more responsive and for every pound to be wisely spent in the right localities due to better information, better communication and better processes.

 

The Head of Neighbourhoods confirmed the council’s ongoing commitment to the development of staff with regard to strength-based working. A community of practice for council officers had been established, which included going out to wards and talking to Councillors about strength-based working. Online resources were also available to support staff to utilise strength-base working in their every day practice.

 

Councillor Bennett-Sylvester was encouraged that strength-based working was becoming part of the working culture and commented that all services across the council needed to have bought into the concept for it to be fully effective.

 

Councillor Tinsley reflected that, as a member of the Member & Democratic Panel, it was disappointing that the level of take-up for training offered to Councillors remained low. Councillor Tinsley asked whether any customised training was being considered to encourage Councillors to participate more.

 

The Interim Director confirmed that further conversations were needed with Councillors to tailor a training offer that worked best for them. It was hoped that by offering something more akin to Leadership Support, which was a valuable transferable skill, this would encourage Councillors to engage. However, the intention was to create a supportive environment that Councillors wanted to engage with and not make training compulsory.

 

The Head of Neighbourhoods added that service would explore different shared development opportunities to engender a “team mentality”. Joint Member-Officer development and training would help to understand each other’s roles and the challenges faced. Such training could be tailored to each ward’s priorities and specific issues, as appropriate.

 

Councillor Jackson commented that overall, the Strategy represented a good development from a place of strength. However, Councillor Jackson felt uncomfortable with the suggestion within the Strategy that Neighbourhood Coordinators be changed routinely at every all-out election (every 4 years). In Councillor Jackson’s view, there was significant value in the longevity of relationships between Councillors, officers and local groups within each ward that took time to develop.

 

The Head of Neighbourhoods explained that it had been the intention since the inception of this model of neighbourhood working, that Neighbourhood Coordinators be rotated on a periodic basis. Due to a variety of reasons, such as the pandemic and a change of ward boundaries, that had never been put in place, but the relevant Cabinet Member remained keen to do so.

 

The Head of Neighbourhoods further commented that the reason why it was felt appropriate to rotate Neighbourhood Coordinators was to maintain the consistency of professional and personal development and that all Councillors were provided with support and experience from other areas. It was acknowledged that there would be some impact from the loss of initial information and contact due to handover periods.

 

In response, Councillor Jackson appreciated the arguments for the rotation but felt that the value of good personalities working consistently well together would be of more benefit to communities.

 

Councillor Jones asked what would happen in a ward with inactive Councillors who did not engage with their community? This would lead to an instant failure of the system of communication that the Strategy relied on. Councillor Jones also commented that there were frequent breakdowns in communication between Councillors and officers within certain departments at the council. Councillor Jones suggested that each ward should have its own up to date plan, with data from different directorates, that would keep Councillors informed on when works were due to take place, service delivery schedules etc. This would prevent Councillors being too reliant on case work or knowing which particular officer to contact. It would also help to provide a personal touch to residents.

 

The Interim Director acknowledged that there would always be some inactive Councillors and that ultimately, the success of the Strategy was dependent on Councillors wanting to engage with it. However, the Neighbourhoods Team worked hard to engage with all Councillors. If this was unsuccessful, there were formal processes to explore but it was acknowledged that this could compromise successful delivery of the Strategy in that area.

 

With regard to Councillor Jones’ comment on more ward-specific data, the Interim Director agreed that in order to achieve a more responsive structure, more service data needed to be filtered down to ward level. This would take time to put in place but was an aspiration of the Strategy.

 

The Chair commented that this particular issue demonstrated why it was good to have at least two Councillors in every ward.

 

Councillor Steele commented that he was in agreement with Councillor Jones on the importance of Councillor engagement and stressed the point that, as elected members, Councillors were ultimately responsible for their wards and for taking the time to meet with their residents to understand what Councillors could deliver for them.

 

Councillor Steele also expressed support for Councillor Jackson’s earlier view regarding the rotation of Neighbourhood Coordinators. Councillor Steele hoped that all Councillors and Officers would work together in a professional manner and did not agree with the suggestion that Neighbourhood Coordinators be moved routinely at election time.

 

The Interim Director commented that one of the Strategy’s aims was to set clear expectations of levels of communication between Councillors and council services. This, together with improved processes, would allow Councillors to get to a quicker, more definitive answer to provide to residents.

 

Councillor Beck commented that as a number of Members had expressed concern about the proposed rotation of Neighbourhood Coordinators, IPSC should consider making a recommendation to that effect. The Chair asked if other Members were supportive of a recommendation to Cabinet against this rotation. Councillors Thorp, Stables, Tinsley and Steele expressed their support for making such a recommendation. Members commented that the sudden loss of longstanding working relationships and local knowledge at election time, when there was the potential for political change and an influx of new Councillors, could be damaging to communities and lead to instability.

 

The Interim Director urged Members to exercise an element of caution in relation to such a recommendation, commenting that Councillors would not want to undermine the delivery of service. It was important that the Neighbourhoods Team had the ability to move staff about to suit service need and capacity and to benefit officers’ personal development.

 

Both Councillors Beck and Jackson stated that if Neighbourhood Coordinators needed to be moved for professional development/employment reasons then Members would not wish to interfere with service’s ability to take these decisions. However, Members were against the arbitrary, cyclical rotation of Neighbourhood Coordinators at election time, as currently set out within the Strategy.

 

The Chair asked Members to vote on a recommendation to Cabinet asking them to remove the routine rotation of Neighbourhood Coordinators at election time and Members voted in favour of this.

 

The Chair thanked officers for their input and members for the questions asked.

 

Resolved:-

 

1)    That the presentation in relation to the development of the Neighbourhood Leadership Strategy be noted; and

 

2)    That the following matter be referred to the Chair of the Overview & Scrutiny Management Board for presentation to Cabinet, on behalf of the Improving Places Select Commission, when Cabinet considers the Neighbourhood Leadership Strategy on 6 July 2026:-

 

a)    That Cabinet consider the removal of the following text under “Action Area 4: Ongoing Support and Leadership Development” of the Neighbourhood Leadership Strategy:-

“Within the strategy period, the 2028 local election will be used to reallocate Neighbourhood Coordinators to new wards to ensure Councillors have access to new skills and perspectives. This will be repeated in future electoral cycles.”

 

IPSC Members felt strongly that the proposed introduction of a cyclical rotation of Neighbourhood Coordinators at local elections could be detrimental to neighbourhood working and the aims of the strategy, as significant local knowledge, connections and stability could be lost at a time of potential political change.