LGA Corporate Peer Challenge: Buckinghamshire Council

A team of local government peers, led by the Local Government Association (LGA) delivered a Corporate Peer Challenge (CPC) of Buckinghamshire Council from 30 September to 3 October 2025. This was the council’s first corporate peer challenge since becoming a unitary in 2020.

CPC is a well-established and respected improvement and assurance tool that provides robust, strategic, and credible challenge and support to councils. Further details about the CPC process can be found in Appendix A.

Our peer team consisted of highly experienced and knowledgeable senior local government councillor and officer peers (see section four). We considered the five core areas covered by all CPCs: local priorities and outcomes, organisational and place leadership, governance and culture, financial planning and management and capacity for improvement. The council also agreed an additional theme focusing on town centre regeneration which is highlighted under “organisational and place leadership.” 

This report provides Buckinghamshire Council with feedback on the peer team’s findings. It provides the council with a set of a high-level recommendations alongside further recommendations under each of the CPC’s core areas. There is an expectation the council will publish this report and a clear action plan to respond to all the recommendations highlighted. 

Buckinghamshire Council has built strong foundations since becoming a unitary council in 2020, establishing a clear and unified organisational identity. The council should feel immensely proud and confident in what they have achieved in a relatively short time. There is now a clear opportunity to build on past successes and use them to energise and guide the future delivery ambitions in their second political term which will set Buckinghamshire on the path of becoming a ‘good to great’ organisation.

Buckinghamshire is well-run with strong leadership from both the chief executive and leader who are well respected both internally and externally. 

The council’s corporate plan launched in 2020 with four key priorities. The peer team saw a clear alignment between the corporate plan and the medium-term financial plan but risks were not aligned to ensure the council is making the best use of its resources. While the connection between priorities and resource deployment was understood and applied in Children’s Services, this approach was not consistent across the whole organisation. The new corporate plan currently being developed for the new political term creates an opportunity to ensure there are clear connections between priorities, resources and risks across all parts of the organisation. Staff understand the growth agenda but did not always see how their roles connect to the council’s wider strategic direction. This disconnect was reflected in the staff survey, which showed just over half of staff felt there was a clear sense of direction. The development of a new corporate plan presents an opportunity to embed a clearer ‘golden thread’ linking strategic priorities to individual roles, financial strategy, and performance management.

Relationships between the council and its partners are consistently strong. The peer team observed clear evidence of effective partnership working, which is being further strengthened under the new political leadership. The peer team recognised the council’s relationship with the voluntary and community sector (VCS) is well-developed and were particularly impressed by the strength of the partnership working with health partners and the acute trust, alongside the wider backdrop of the ICB and its challenges.

Since 2020 the council has reduced its net budget by 26.5 per cent (£116.8m) through a mix of service reduction and cessation as well as doing things differently for example by opening in house children’s homes. The council has also demonstrated a strong commitment to digital innovation and AI to enhance service delivery and find efficiencies. Initiatives such as the “Year of Creativity,” and Creativity Camps promote staff-led problem solving and innovation. However, the council must be realistic about the limits of innovation and efficiency in addressing future financial challenges. Post Fair Funding reform, a different order of challenge will emerge and the council will need to make even more difficult decisions in order to continue to balance the budget. 

The council changed political control in May 2025 from a majority Conservative administration to being in no overall control with a minority administration by one. While governance is robust and effective, with clear structures and responsibilities understood across the organisation, as with any council that has a change in political make up, the council must ensure it adjusts to operating as a no overall council with a minority administration. This shift requires a renewed focus on scrutiny, cross-party engagement, and member development. 

Scrutiny chairs and members not in the administration told the peer team that the recent member induction programme was positively received and would welcome further training for committee chairs and vice chairs, as this is currently inconsistent. The scrutiny function would benefit from a review, particularly in relation to the use of call-in powers, pre-decision scrutiny, and chairs’ training. The council would also benefit from a cross-party review of the constitution in light of the minority administration election result.

Strong partnerships and post-LGR status provide a platform to shape proposals and secure investment. These strong foundations, including a good understanding of the different economies within the area, need strategic focus and capacity to explore and define Buckinghamshire’s role within the wider economic geography to ensure it benefits from evolving future growth frameworks. The council’s economic growth plan is ambitious and well-regarded, supported by a strong Growth Board and active regional engagement. The council is well-positioned to influence regional devolution discussions but currently chooses not to be actively part of a regional devolution ask of government. This approach means the council risks being excluded resulting in devolution being done to them, rather than having an opportunity to shape what happens in Bucks. The council’s partners also expressed concern that this approach could result in Bucks losing its competitive edge.

In relation to town centre regeneration plans—particularly in Aylesbury—the peer team found a lack of strategic coherence and funding clarity. Aligning housing strategy, asset management, and regeneration plans will be essential to deliver integrated growth and revitalise town centres. 

Housing growth presents a significant challenge, particularly in accommodating the revised target of 95,000 new homes. Effective management of the Local Plan will be essential to unlocking opportunities for affordable housing.

Community empowerment is central to the council’s ambitions. Programmes like Opportunity Bucks are well-regarded and demonstrate a data-driven, place-based approach. Levels of community engagement varies dependent on the context of the place. Community Boards are aligned with strategic priorities, although levels of engagement vary.

The council could go further and embed the “Opportunity Bucks” approach as a way of working, not just a programme which focuses on specific wards and activities. Despite funding limitations, Opportunity Bucks has the potential to work as a model to influence broader decision making and plans across the council. It could also help empower communities to respond to the implications of significant growth.

SEND (Special Educational Needs and Disabilities) and temporary accommodation (TA) demand management remain critical challenges. Children’s Services continues to be rated “requires improvement to be good.” The EHCP (Education Health Care Plan) backlog is a significant concern with plans in place to address the issues. TA use has stabilised but remains high and costly, with limited use of Registered Provider stock for dispersed accommodation. The council must maintain a laser-like focus on these areas, working closely with partners to improve outcomes and reduce financial pressure. Addressing housing growth challenges will require better partner engagement, alignment of planning and housing strategies, and increased capacity to manage revised targets and public sensitivities.

Staff feel proud to work for the council and report a strong sense of community and purpose. However, visibility of senior leadership varies, and some internal communication systems are fragmented. Although the council uses staff reps as a way of communicating up and down the organisation, this received mixed reviews as an effective communication channel from the staff that the peer team spoke to. Staff also told the peer team they would like more autonomy in their roles, highlighting restrictive processes, and limited delegation, which can hinder operational efficiency. Addressing these issues will be important to empower leaders and staff further and be an organisation that goes from 'good to great’.

Buckinghamshire Council has a strong foundation and clear ambition. By aligning strategy with resources, empowering staff and communities, and adapting governance to its political context, the council can confidently move into its next phase of transformation. Buckinghamshire has much to be proud of and is well sighted on the council’s challenges but needs to be more confident in its influencing role as the leader of place.

The following are the peer team’s key recommendations which have been prioritised on the grounds of urgency and importance. 

1. Be proud of what you've achieved and confident in your next steps.
2. Align your corporate plan with your medium-term financial plan and risks to ensure the council makes best use of its resources.
3. Finance – recognise the work already done and continue doing what you're doing but know innovation will only get you so far. A different order of challenge is coming.
4. Ensure you work in a way that reflects a council that is under no overall control with a minority administration. Invest in your member development including the LGA offer.
5. Keep a laser like focus on your SEND and TA demand management and work with your partners to address this.
6. Empower your communities: Need to put effort and resource into empowering your communities as they deal with the implications of significant growth.
7. Use your influence and insight to shape plans particularly for devolution across wider geographies before others do! This will allow you to harness the proceeds of growth for local residents and businesses.
8. Grasp the opportunity of the town centres and the Local Plan together to shape the positive place identity for Buckinghamshire with a focus on Aylesbury. Ensure the significance and impact of the Local Plan is integrated and well understood.
9. Encourage autonomy: Make sure your ways of working encourage autonomy to deliver the council's strategic priorities and address the financial challenges.

In addition to the key recommendations section five of this report captures our detailed feedback and additional recommendations within each of the CPC’s core areas of focus.

Peer challenges are conducted by experienced LGA peers, including elected councillors and senior officers. The composition of the peer team was shaped by the specific focus of the challenge, with the LGA selecting peers based on their relevant expertise. The peers for this CPC were:

• Lead Officer Peer: Becky Shaw, Chief Executive, East Sussex County Council
• Lead Member Peer: Cllr Richard Clewer, Opposition Conservative Group Leader, Wiltshire Council
• Opposition Member Peer: Cllr Richard Keeling, Leader of Teignbridge District Council and Cabinet Member for Adult Social Care and Health, Devon County Council
• Officer Peer: Paul Cracknell, Executive Director of Strategy and Transformation, Norfolk County Council
• Officer Peer: Shaun Darcy, Director of Finance and Procurement (S151), Walsall Council
• Officer Peer: David Shepherd, Executive Director of Place, Kirklees Council
• Shadow Peer: Linzi Colaco, Impact Graduate, Royal Borough of Greenwich
• Peer Challenge Manager: Sophie Poole, Senior Regional Advisor for London and South East, Local Government Association.

This section of the report provides detailed feedback along with additional recommendations related to the five core areas of focus and the additional area of focus, town centre regeneration which is featured under the theme organisational and place leadership.

When developing the action plan (in response to the CPC’s findings), the council should consider both the key recommendations presented in section three and the additional recommendations set out below. 

Buckinghamshire Council has successfully delivered its Better Bucks programme, which established the unitary authority in 2020 by merging Buckinghamshire County Council with four district councils: Aylesbury Vale, Chiltern, South Bucks, and Wycombe.

The council’s six-year corporate plan, launched in 2020, sets out four key priorities that are realistic and evidence-based. The peer team saw a clear alignment between the corporate plan and the medium-term financial plan but risks were not aligned to ensure the council is making the best use of its resources. The peer team saw a clear alignment between the corporate plan and the medium-term financial plan but risks were not aligned to ensure the council is making the best use of its resources. Staff understand the growth agenda, yet many do not see how their roles connect to the council’s wider strategic direction. The development of a new corporate plan presents an opportunity to embed a clearer ‘golden thread’ linking priorities to individual roles and financial strategy.

The Opportunity Bucks programme exemplifies how the council is responding to local need. Resident involvement in shaping the programme was described to the peer team as “inconsistent” and the programme’s link to the corporate plan could be clearer. 

Performance data and inspection results show targeted improvement efforts. Children’s Services remain rated “requires improvement to be good” following Ofsted’s January 2025 inspection. Adult Social Care received a “Good” CQC (Care Quality Commission) rating in July 2025. SEND (special educational needs) and TA (temporary accommodation) demand management remains a significant challenge. 

The council demonstrates a strong commitment to Equality, Diversity, and Inclusion (EDI) through staff networks. Staff forums actively respond to live news events, and leadership regularly shares practical EDI guidance. To improve, the council should look at ways it can enhance the visibility and impact of its EDI policy and ensure inclusive communication to sustain progress.

The key recommendations that relate to local priorities and outcomes are:

• Be proud of what you've achieved and confident in your next steps.
• Align your corporate plan with your medium-term financial plan and risks to ensure the council makes best use of its resources.
• Keep a laser like focus on your SEND and TA demand management and work with your partners to address this. 

We also recommend the council progresses the following actions:

• Develop and embed a clear ‘golden thread’ through the new corporate plan to ensure council priorities are consistently understood and applied across all levels of the organisation.
• Clearly define how the Opportunity Bucks programme delivers against the key priorities of the council.
• Implement and integrate the new data platform to improve performance monitoring, ensuring enhanced data quality and enabling more strategic oversight and accountability of KPIs across the council. Also use the refreshed approach to performance monitoring as an opportunity to review your KPIs.
• Consider ways in which the council can elevate the visibility and impact of its EDI policy so that internal and external communications reinforce inclusivity and maintain momentum. 

Are the council’s priorities clear and informed by the local context?

Buckinghamshire Council successfully delivered its Better Bucks programme, which established the unitary authority in 2020 by merging Buckinghamshire County Council with four district councils: Aylesbury Vale, Chiltern, South Bucks, and Wycombe. Staff told the peer team they were proud to work for Buckinghamshire Council and there was a clear sense from the staff the peer team spoke to, that they appreciated the benefits of unitarisation and saw the council operating as one organisation. 

As the council moves into its next phase of change “@PACE,” the peer team encourages the council to reflect on successes and lessons learned over the past five years.

The council’s six-year corporate plan, launched in 2020 is realistic and evidence based, outlining four key priorities: increasing prosperity, strengthening communities, improving the environment, and protecting the vulnerable. The peer team saw a clear alignment between the corporate plan and the medium-term financial plan but risks were not aligned to ensure the council is making the best use of its resources. While the connection between priorities and resource deployment was understood and applied in Children’s Services, this approach was not consistent across the whole organisation. The new corporate plan currently being developed for the new political term creates an opportunity to ensure there are clear connections between priorities, resources as well as risks across all parts of the organisation.

While the growth agenda is broadly understood, staff do not always see how their roles connect to the council’s direction. This was reflected in the staff survey, with just over half saying they felt there was a clear sense of direction—down 7 per cent since 2023. The council is clearly ambitious with multiple priorities; however, this is diluting the vision of the council. The peer team heard: “Staff are waiting with an excited anticipation for leadership to set out the direction we are going in".

The council’s vision and key priorities should permeate the organisation and be consistently understood and applied across all levels. The new corporate plan presents an opportunity to embed a ‘golden thread’ linking strategic priorities to individual appraisal targets, ensuring consistent understanding and application across the organisation. 

The Opportunity Bucks programme, aimed at tackling hardship in the 14 most deprived wards, is well-regarded by staff, members and partners and was described as “a way of thinking, not just a project.” It brings together partners across the system and uses data to target community funds effectively with activities coordinated through Community Boards and Ward Partnerships. While Community Action Days sought the views of 1,500 residents, it is unclear how communities can continue to shape ongoing activity other than through their councillor representatives. There is an aspiration to deepen engagement and clarify how Opportunity Bucks aligns with the wider corporate plan.

A coproduction-based approach to service delivery is emerging in Adults and Children’s services, supported by a framework which is under review. However, beyond this, while there was evidence of resident engagement the gold standard of working with people to shape services at the beginning of any change wasn’t yet a reality across the organisation. 

The council has strong staff networks for protected characteristics; each is aligned with a Corporate Management Team (CMT) member. Initiatives such as reverse mentoring and external sponsorship (for example, Pinewood funds for Pride) support inclusion. Staff forums respond to live news events, demonstrating active listening. Equality, Diversity, and Inclusion (EDI) is embedded in leadership, with practical suggestions regularly provided. However, engagement with underrepresented groups like the Traveller and Sikh communities remains a challenge. To strengthen its approach, the council should think about ways it can elevate the visibility and impact of its EDI policy to its staff, ensuring timely communications reinforce inclusivity and maintain momentum in tackling discrimination. The council might usefully consider together with partners its approach to community cohesion and the way in which the faith forum can be further developed in this regard.

Delivery against priorities and comparative performance

Following the Ofsted inspection in January 2025, Children’s Services continue to be rated as “requires improvement to be good”, prompting a clear organisational push to improve service quality, particularly in addressing SEND demand and the backlog of Education, Health, and Care Plans (EHCPs). Adult Social Care received a 'Good' CQC assessment in July 2025. 

Peers considered LG Inform benchmarking data which shows how the council compares with the average of their statistical nearest CIPFA neighbours: Headline Report for Buckinghamshire Council - Bar Chart View | LG Inform

• Second lowest for both council tax not collected as a percentage of council tax due and non-domestic rates not collected as a percentage of no domestic rates due (2024/25).
• Second highest revenue expenditure on Highways and transport services per head of population (2024/25).
• Second lowest revenue expenditure on Cultural and related services per head of population (2024/25).

Is there an organisation-wide approach to continuous improvement? 

There is a clear focus on continuous improvement at Buckinghamshire. Digital innovation and AI is being used to enhance service delivery, with permit schemes and contact centre upgrades enhancing efficiency. Programmes like the “Year of Creativity” and Creativity Camps promote staff-led problem-solving and innovation. Performance is regularly monitored through dashboards. Key performance indicators (KPIs) are presented to Cabinet and the Audit and Governance Committee for review, and the five scrutiny select committees investigate and review specific issues. Service-level improvements are evident in Children’s homes, fostering, and SEND provision, supported by the Service Improvement Team’s targeted resource allocation. Performance management is improving through KPI reviews and a new data platform that strengthens oversight and aligns with financial and risk reporting which is addressing challenges such as SEND demand, TA, and traffic congestion. The council also captures demographic data, including underrepresented groups, to inform action planning. The incoming data platform will further improve performance monitoring and strategic oversight.

The officer and political leadership team are widely perceived by staff and partners as strong, effective, and open. The peer team received consistent feedback that the approach of the new leader is having a positive impact, representing a welcome opportunity to reset and refocus the organisation.

Relationships between the council and its partners are consistently strong. The peer team observed clear evidence of effective partnership working, which is being further strengthened under the new political leadership. Maintaining strong partnerships requires ongoing effort, and the council is well-positioned to build on this solid foundation.

The council’s relationship with local health providers and the voluntary and community sector (VCS) is particularly well-developed. There is a shared emphasis on prevention, which places Buckinghamshire ahead of many other councils still working to embed this approach. Similarly, the partnership with the local college and the integration of skills into economic development are mature and well-regarded.

Community Boards are aligned with the council’s strategic priorities. While operational differences exist across geographies, to reflect the individual needs of specific settlements there is broad consensus that their evolving role in empowerment and enabling is appropriate. There is potential to expand their remit further into place-shaping, enhancing their contribution to local development. The peer team heard concerns regarding the sustainability of community boards due to funding reductions and the council should consider how the remit of the boards might change further if subject to further budget reductions.

Organisational development is a clear priority for the council. Succession planning, coaching, and mentoring initiatives are actively building internal capacity and resilience. Staff engagement is supported through regular briefings and open communication channels, contributing to a culture of learning, transparency, and continuous improvement.

The council has a strong, collaborative economic growth plan supported by a well-established Growth Board, strategic partnerships, and active regional engagement to boost investment and connectivity. Despite geographical challenges, it is focused on accelerating development, supporting microbusinesses, and fostering high-growth sectors to create future-ready jobs and retain local talent.

The leader has set a clear ambition for town centre regeneration, but current plans—especially in Aylesbury—lack strategy coherence, policy alignment and a viable funding approach, requiring a refreshed and realistic vision. To deliver integrated growth, the council must align its housing strategy, asset management, and regeneration plans, while fostering stronger partnerships and increasing its appetite for risk to unlock investment and revitalise town centres.

Despite a clear national direction for devolution, Buckinghamshire faces challenges due to neighbouring reorganisations and uncertainty around mayoral authority funding, risking exclusion from regional growth discussions. However, its post-LGR status and strong partnerships position it well to develop compelling devolution proposals—provided it builds strategic capacity and clarifies its role within the wider economic geography.

The council has stabilised temporary accommodation use but must take a more ambitious, strategic approach to reduce reliance on it and improve housing outcomes. Addressing housing growth challenges will require better partner engagement, alignment of planning and housing strategies, and increased capacity to manage revised targets and public sensitivities effectively.

The key recommendations that relate to organisational and place leadership are:

• Use your influence and insight to shape plans particularly for devolution across wider geographies before others do! This will allow you to harness the proceeds of growth for local residents and businesses.
• Grasp the opportunity of the town centres and the Local Plan together to shape the positive place identity for Buckinghamshire with a focus on Aylesbury. Ensure the significance and impact of the Local Plan is integrated and well understood.
• Empower your communities and put effort and resource into empowering your communities as they deal with the implications of significant growth.

We also recommend the council progress the following actions:

• Build on and expand the remit of your Community Boards further into place-shaping and enhance their contribution to local development in towns and parishes to benefit the whole county.
• Ensure sustainability and embed the Opportunity Bucks concept to be more than just a programme and turn into a way of working with vulnerable communities.
• Revisit and reshape your town centre regeneration plans, recognising you need to reset the strategic direction with aspiration at appropriate scale for thriving and growing towns that provide the incentive for people to stay​.
• Foster stronger partnerships and increase appetite for risk to unlock investment, drive bold regeneration, and revitalise town centres.
• Align your housing strategy, asset management, and regeneration plans to deliver integrated growth.
• Take a more ambitious approach to temporary accommodation to reduce reliance Engage partners to increase access to housing stock for dispersed temporary accommodation. 

Does the council provide effective local leadership?

1. Buckinghamshire had a change of political control in the May elections becoming a minority run council with a new leader. The new leader is seen as approachable and engaging, with a strong sense of ambition, especially around regeneration and economic growth. The chief executive and corporate management team (CMT) were positively perceived as “strong and caring” and providing “robust leadership.” The majority of staff told the peer team that they appreciate the visibility and accessibility of CMT, including regular all-staff briefings, roadshows, and wellbeing “check in” calls on Fridays from the chief executive. Although this was not consistently reflected across the organisation, with some staff saying they rarely see their director, particularly by those staff working at the Walton Street offices.
2. There is a strong and respectful relationship between senior officers and members, which was described to the peer team as “trusted and transparent.” The council has had three staff complaints against members in the past five years. CMT is perceived as a cohesive team and were praised for being non-judgmental and supportive.

Are there good relationships with partners and local communities?

The council is recognised for its proactive approach to partnership working, described as “leaning into partnerships,” underpinned by a strong officer and member leadership culture. Externally, the council is beginning to shape a renewed vision for its role and identity.

Relationships with key partners—including the voluntary sector, NHS, police, and local businesses—are reported to be strong and improving, particularly in the post-COVID context. The council is viewed as accessible and responsive, with structured engagement mechanisms and joint working groups operating across services. There was limited evidence of direct engagement with Members of Parliament (MPs), regular face to face meetings are chaired by the Leader of Council and attended by relevant cabinet members and officers. The council is active in a range of regional and national forums including Englands Economic Heartland, South East strategic leaders and the County Council Network. Feedback suggests there is scope to further empower partners, particularly town and parish councils and housing associations.

The Opportunity Bucks programme continues to serve as a flagship example of place-based leadership, targeting the most deprived wards through a data-driven, hyperlocal approach. The programme is widely praised by partners for fostering a shared narrative around prevention, inclusion, and investment in place. Community Boards are aligned with strategic priorities, although levels of engagement vary.

There is a strategic focus on regeneration, and while the council is beginning to shape a new external vision, feedback indicates that greater clarity is needed—particularly in areas such as Aylesbury.

Town Centre Regeneration: Does the council have the capacity and resource to match its ambitions for its town centres? Are the delivery plans realistic and deliverable?

The Leader has articulated a clear aspiration for town centre regeneration; however, current plans lack clarity of vision, policy alignment, and a realistic funding strategy. This is particularly evident in Aylesbury, which has been described as “lacking strategic coherence.” A refresh is required, with aspirations scaled appropriately to support thriving towns that encourage residents to stay and invest locally.

The peer team heard that the council must define what regeneration means and clarify whether towns such as Aylesbury are intended to be “nice market towns” or “shining county towns.” Partner engagement in town centre regeneration is more evident in some parts of the county rather than others. Notable examples of good practice exist, such as the Bucks College new build in High Wycombe, which demonstrates a shared purpose and enabled delivery of a £60 million education facility in the town centre. Similar partnerships with Registered Providers could help address employer concerns around attracting and retaining a skilled workforce.

The Growth Strategy provides an opportunity to link the housing strategy, town centre regeneration plans and the Strategic Asset Management Plan. This would ensure an unambiguous approach in delivering regeneration alongside economic growth. A perception of risk aversion may also hinder bold regeneration efforts and infrastructure investment. The peer team heard:

“Planning needs to speed up and be more flexible. We need to increase the corporate appetite for risk, particularly on use of assets to stimulate regeneration and investment, leading to economic and housing growth.”

Strategic use of town centre assets will support regeneration, but this must be plan-led rather than opportunistic. Alignment between the Strategic Asset Management Plan, housing strategy, and a spatial town centre masterplan will be critical.

Growth

The council has developed a clear, cogent, and ambitious economic growth plan, which is jointly owned with partners and is being actively embedded across the organisation. The Growth Board is well-established, building on the legacy of the former Local Enterprise Partnership (LEP), and provides a platform for strategic alignment across enterprise zones, housing, and industrial development.

There is both an opportunity and a requirement for the council to use its influencing capability to shape plans across wider economic geographies. Planning reforms and the Strategic Sites Committee are contributing to accelerated delivery. The council is actively engaging with regional partners to improve connectivity and attract investment, particularly via EEH and the Silverstone Partnership Board. Support for microbusinesses is strong, with Bucks Business First representing over 15,000 SME members.

However, Buckinghamshire’s location and character present complexities that must be navigated to fully realise the benefits of major government projects. The council has built strategic relationships with key businesses, including Silverstone and Pinewood Studios and Westcott. This aligns with the counties economic growth strategy. Moving forward, there is a need to nurture high-growth sectors, create future-facing employment opportunities, and retain local talent to strengthen communities.

Devolution

While the national direction of travel for devolution is clear, Buckinghamshire faces a complex landscape shaped by local government reorganisation (LGR) in neighbouring authorities and uncertainty around funding for Strategic Mayoral Authorities. Despite this, the council is well-positioned—thanks to being post LGR and having strong partner relationships—to develop clear propositions for a devolved authority, potentially ahead of its regional counterparts.

Although Buckinghamshire successfully applied for a level 2 devolution deal, it does not currently comply with the government definition of a Strategic Mayoral Authority. This could result in the council being overlooked in regional and national growth conversations, particularly as neighbouring areas engage more actively with devolution frameworks. This approach runs the risk of Buckinghamshire being left behind. Partners told the peer team: 

“Buckinghamshire’s lack of engagement with a future mayoral authority footprint risks them being left behind as new government structures emerge.”

“Mayoral priorities are likely to result in Bucks losing out… Still a need to define role of Bucks within wider economic geography.”

The peer team urges that the council to reflect, challenge and ask itself whether the organisation has the strategic capacity and capability to plan for, fund and deliver large-scale infrastructure in the absence of a strategic authority? 

Housing

The council has responded to rising homelessness demand and is perceived to have stabilised the use of temporary accommodation (TA). However, further work is needed to manage both demand and supply more effectively. There is an opportunity to be more ambitious about the “steady state” for TA, as maintaining over 400 households in TA is costly, delivers poor housing outcomes, and diverts resources. It is important that the council continues to focus all efforts on this. The council should consider how it strengthens its approach to the commissioning of TA and other specialist housing and whether existing structures enable this work at the pace required.

Partners can play a greater role in future development, particularly in increasing access to stock for dispersed TA. Currently, only 100 homes out of 34,000 Registered Provider units are used for TA, which is a low starting point.

Housing growth presents a significant challenge, particularly in accommodating the revised target of 95,000 new homes. Effective management of the Local Plan will be essential to unlocking opportunities for affordable housing. Having a mindset that is orientated, focussed, and defined by the need to support growth in the place is needed in planning to deliver new communities and the benefits they bring. Learning from other authorities will be key.

The council is aware of the challenges posed by revised housing targets, particularly the political and public sensitivities involved. Managing these issues as sites come forward will require substantial officer and member resource and must be handled in a way that does not detract from overall council performance.

Member and officer relationships are positive with roles and responsibilities clearly understood across the organisation. The peer team heard that governance is robust and effective with staff, members and partners demonstrating a clear understanding of structures, responsibilities, and compliance requirements. There is joint agenda planning and structured engagement between senior officers and members.

However, as with any authority that has changed political control, it is important that the council’s ways of working adjust to becoming a no overall control council with a minority administration with a shift in how decisions are made, how proposed budgets are scrutinised and the way in which relationships are managed, with more emphasis on the use of scrutiny. The council’s Constitution was revised ahead of the election, and a further revision should be considered to reflect the new political composition and operational context. New electoral boundaries and a reduction in councillor numbers have been implemented, resulting in a total of 97 councillors—half of whom have joined since 2020.

The scheme of delegation is clearly defined, with a strong grip around financial limits of expenditure; however, the peer team heard how these controls were perceived to slow down service delivery by some staff and should be reviewed for operational efficiency.

The Annual Governance Statement captures live risks and issues facing the council, and reports on actions taken in response to the previous year’s challenges.

The key recommendations that relate to governance and culture are:

• Encourage autonomy: Make sure your ways of working encourage autonomy to deliver the council's strategic priorities and addressing the financial challenges.
• Ensure you work in a way that reflects a council that is under no overall control with a minority administration. Invest in your member development including the LGA offer.

We also recommend the council progress the following actions:

• The scrutiny function would benefit from a review particularly in relation to the use of call in, pre decision and chairs’ training which would support greater cross-party ownership of decision-making.
• The constitution was revised ahead of the election and a further revision should be taken into account to reflect the new council.
• The scheme of delegation should be reviewed for operational efficiency and to allow staff more autonomy if the council wants to become a ‘good to great’ organisation.
• Developing an ongoing member development programme co-designed with members is essential. Invest in your member development including the LGA offer.
• Keep prioritising capacity in relation to external audit, to maintain momentum on assurance.
• The council’s appetite for strategic risk should be recalibrated to support bold decision-making. The role of the Audit and Governance Committee in risk governance should be reconsidered to ensure appropriate focus. 

Are there clear and robust governance arrangements?

Governance is robust and effective with staff, members and partners demonstrating a clear understanding of structures, responsibilities, and compliance requirements. There is a strong working relationship between the statutory officers—head of paid service, section 151 officer, and monitoring officer who meet monthly to set the governance tone and consider high risk matters including fraud, whistleblowing and member complaints.

The most recent external audit commentary indicates that the council’s VfM (value for money) arrangements are generally sound. The transition from Grant Thornton to KPMG was well supported by the finance team. The internal audit opinion was rated as “reasonable,” suggesting that while there are areas for improvement, there are no critical weaknesses. Previous concerns raised about the speed of implementing internal audit recommendations have been addressed. It is important to maintain momentum and focus when implementing audit recommendations.

Cabinet and select committee meetings are described as transparent and well-supported, with detailed scrutiny of growth and savings options. Financial reporting is regular and comprehensive, with monthly updates to CMT and quarterly reporting to Cabinet. The peer team heard there were concerns about the effectiveness of scrutiny and the need for the opposition to engage. Also some scrutiny chairs are not as engaged with senior officers as they should be. The tightness of governance and the perception that the scope for scrutiny call-ins is limited, also restricts broader risk consideration. Although select committees engage in scrutiny, pre-decision scrutiny is limited.

The strategic risk register is reviewed quarterly by CMT and cabinet, indicating a regular and structured approach. However, it no longer goes to the Audit and Governance Committee, which may limit broader member oversight particularly given the challenges ahead. There is no indication of missing risks, but the perception of the council being risk-averse—particularly in planning and regeneration—suggests that appetite for strategic risk may need to be recalibrated to support bold decision-making. The role of the Audit and Governance Committee in risk governance and/or the Risk Management Group should be reconsidered to ensure appropriate focus. 

Following the elections in May, there was an extensive member induction programme which was positively received. However, training for new committee chairs and vice chairs has been inconsistent, with some unaware of their roles and entitlements (for example, agenda planning meetings). There is an opportunity to strengthen the member development programme by ensuring consistent training, and by expanding learning around working in a politically complex environment. The Audit and Governance Committee in particular is noted as needing improvement in its scrutiny function, and training is underway for new members.

Is there a culture of challenge and scrutiny?

Staff and members are proud of Buckinghamshire Council. There is a collaborative and innovative approach to problem solving and continuous improvement. The council has a culture of innovation, with initiatives like Creativity Camps and AI integration being well received.

A culture of openness, transparency and trust varies depending on where staff sit in the organisation. The majority of staff feel engaged and listened to, however the peer team heard on a number of occasions that they would welcome more autonomy in their roles. Feedback highlighted restrictive processes, limited delegation, and inconsistent experiences with development and succession planning. Further exploration of this could help empower staff and create a culture of dispersed leadership and dispersed ownership so the council can move from “good to great.” 

The council has sound financial systems and processes to manage its financial position both for the current year and over the medium term. It has a good track record of savings delivery and is currently on target to achieve the savings set for 2025/26. There is a transparent process for agreeing the savings options through CMT, Cabinet and Finance and Resources Select Committee with appropriate scrutiny throughout. 

The finance function is well respected, and the financial position is understood across the council services and is a key priority of the leadership and executive. The level of general fund reserves and earmarked reserves are at a sufficient level for the size and risks of the council.

The Fair Funding Review 2.0 is projected to have a negative impact on funding received from Government to the council. Some of this has been factored into the MTFP. The DSG position is understood and needs to be managed. The steps to clear the SEND backlog will only increase this pressure and this represents a serious challenge to the council.

Aligning your corporate plan with your MTFP and risks across the whole organisation will ensure you are making the best use of your resources. Innovation and efficiency will only get you so far in addressing the financial challenges ahead - further changes to service provision will be likely.

The key recommendations that relate to financial planning and management are:

• Align your corporate plan with your medium-term financial plan and risks to ensure the council makes best use of its resources.
• Encourage autonomy: Make sure your ways of working encourage autonomy to deliver the council's strategic priorities and addressing the financial challenges.

We also recommend the council progress the following actions:

• Be realistically ambitious about what innovation and efficiency can deliver in cashable savings. Further changes to service provision will be likely given the financial context.
• Review the spend controls in place and get the balance of good financial management and appropriate decision making and autonomy in line with staff delegations.
• Regeneration ambitions and other capital needs have to be managed without having a significant further impact on the MTFP through borrowing or through revenue reserves.
• A further level of savings will need to be built in for 2026/27 should the Fair Funding Review 2.0 projections come to fruition.

Does the council have a clear understanding of its financial position and a strategy and plan to address its financial challenges?

Buckinghamshire Council has developed a credible and structured approach to financial planning. Since 2020 the council has reduced its net budget by 26.5 per cent (£116.8m). The Medium-Term Financial Plan (MTFP) is referenced across multiple service areas, with clear links to business cases and savings targets. The connection between priorities and resource deployment was understood and applied in Children’s Services. This approach was not consistent across the whole organisation - the new corporate plan currently being developed for the new political term creates an opportunity to ensure there are clear connections between priorities, resources and risks across all parts of the organisation.

The council has achieved a balanced budget for 2024/25 and is on track to deliver £77 million in savings for 2025/26. Financial planning is supported by early spend controls and a focus on affordability, particularly in capital and regeneration programmes. The council acknowledges its position in relation to central government funding, noting that it is “at the back of the queue” and must seek alternative investment avenues. The council’s approach to capital and regeneration is described as cautious, with a preference for affordability and minimal borrowing. Could the council attract more funding from being in a combined / strategic authority to support its ambitious regeneration plans?

The council demonstrates a structured approach to risk management. Risks related to equal pay, demand pressures, savings delivery, and income generation are acknowledged. with specific concerns raised about the financial exposure of subsidiary companies. The peer team also heard that there had been previous concerns about the speed in which the council implemented internal audit recommendation which have since been addressed. 

There is strong evidence of a shared understanding of the council’s financial position across political and managerial leadership. Financial updates are provided monthly to the Corporate Management Team (CMT) and quarterly to cabinet. Select committee scrutiny of growth and savings options is described as detailed and transparent. The council’s financial environment is well understood by staff, although some report that approval processes are overly controlled.

Financial plans are broadly aligned with corporate priorities. The Strategic Asset Management Plan is being developed to integrate with the Local Plan and economic growth strategies. However, there are concerns about the lack of alignment between housing strategy, town centre regeneration, and asset planning, which may limit the council’s ability to deliver joined-up growth.

The capital programme is described as being managed from an affordability perspective, with early spend controls in place. While the council has unlocked significant investment (for example, through enterprise zones), there is a need for clearer pipeline activity and funding strategies, particularly in town centre regeneration. The financial capacity to deliver major infrastructure independently is questioned.

The council has stabilised temporary accommodation demand but needs to be more ambitious in reducing it. The use of Registered Provider stock for dispersed TA is low, and future development partnerships could improve access to housing.

Financial management is supported by robust monitoring and governance arrangements. Internal audit is overseen by the monitoring officer and is undergoing review to ensure added value. The external audit transition to KPMG was well managed, with no significant issues reported. 

The council has commercial arrangements, including subsidiary companies inherited from district councils. A Shareholder Committee meets every six weeks to oversee these entities. One property company was flagged by the external auditor as a higher risk. Members told the peer team that commercial confidentiality is reportedly overused, which is perceived as potentially limiting transparency. Overall, the council’s commercial arrangements are within the norm but require continued oversight.

The peer team heard positive reflections that integration work reported was well-established across the council following unitarisation, providing a strong foundation for future progress, presenting both opportunities and challenges for continued development. The council benefits from a cohesive leadership culture, with a leadership team that collaborates effectively and engagement across the organisation is maintained through systematic, regular, and informal mechanisms. Recent changes in senior and political leadership have introduced renewed momentum and energy.

A comprehensive suite of improvement mechanisms is in place, supported by cross-functional leadership that promotes knowledge sharing and helps to break down organisational siloes.

The council demonstrates an intentional approach to innovation, creativity, and the adoption of technology, which is recognised as a significant strength.

The current individual performance bonus scheme received mixed reviews across the organisation. Staff in senior management roles told the peer team they were positive about the scheme. However some staff not in management roles, fed back that their experience was that it was divisive. The scheme may benefit from review.

The following key recommendations are reflected under capacity for improvement: 

• Be proud of what you've achieved and confident in your next steps.
• Align your corporate plan with your medium-term financial plan and risks to ensure the council makes best use of its resources.
• Encourage autonomy: Make sure your ways of working encourage autonomy to deliver the council's strategic priorities and address the financial challenges.

We also recommend the council progresses the following actions:

• Review the council’s appraisal process and the current approach to individual performance bonuses which is perceived by staff as divisive.

Is the organisation able to bring about the improvements it needs, including delivering on locally identified priorities and the capacity to improve? 

Buckinghamshire Council demonstrates confidence in its capacity to deliver agreed priorities. Feedback from staff and leadership indicates that the council has the platform and capability to implement its growth plan, with a renewed focus on speed and urgency. The council’s strategic leadership is described as strong and collaborative, with a clear ambition to embed priorities across the organisation. 

Resources and workforce skills are broadly aligned to strategic priorities. The council has implemented a strong people plan, supported by the Together staff survey, succession planning, and coaching for success. Targeted recruitment campaigns have been successful in areas such as children’s homes, social care, educational psychology, and legal services. However, staff shortages remain a challenge in key areas, particularly social care, and planning. 

Skills development is supported through initiatives like Creativity Camps, bootcamps, and adult skills programmes, with a clear link to economic development. The council is working with partners such as Bucks College and employers to create employment pathways, although capacity at lower levels and alignment of skills strategy with devolution remain areas for improvement. 

There is evidence that employees understand their roles and reporting lines, particularly following the Local Government Reorganisation (LGR), which included mapping of employees into service teams. However, some staff report uncertainty about corporate priorities, and there are concerns about inconsistent messaging across directorates. Visibility of senior leadership varies, with some staff telling the peer team they have not met their service directors or executive leaders. 

The council has made significant strides in improving internal communication and engagement. Staff report feeling valued, supported, and proud to work for the council. Communication channels include briefings, blogs, vlogs, all-staff meetings, and employee representative networks, which are seen as effective in cascading key messages. However, call centre staff struggle to attend live briefings due to operational constraints, and intranet and internal systems were described as fragmented, making it difficult to find the right contacts. 

Directorate-level meetings sometimes lack union input, contributing to a perceived disconnect between senior leadership and frontline staff. In addition to union representation the council also have a system of staff reps that meet regularly with the chief executive and senior leaders to identify issues and collective solutions. However perceptions of staff reps as an effective communication channel by staff were mixed. 

Organisational health indicators within Buckinghamshire Council present a mixed but generally positive picture, reflecting both strengths and areas requiring further attention. Staff told the peer team they had high levels of satisfaction, with particular praise for the council’s culture of flexibility, support, and internal development opportunities. Staff feel proud to work for the council and report a strong sense of community and purpose. Managing change continues to be flagged by staff as an issue and in addition the appraisal processes were identified as a concern. Staff expressed uncertainty about how performance ratings are determined and how they translate into pay progression. There is a perception that thresholds for achieving higher ratings are unclear and difficult to meet, which may impact motivation and trust in the system. 

The council has invested in succession planning and leadership development, with initiatives such as the “Bucks Managers” programme and structured coaching and mentoring. These efforts are helping to build internal capacity and support career progression. 

There are signs of change fatigue, particularly in some areas undergoing multiple transformation programmes. The transition from the Better Buckinghamshire programme to @PACE has been noted as a source of pressure, with staff expressing concerns about the pace and volume of change. The peer team also heard there are pressure points related to long working hours and resource constraints. These issues may affect staff wellbeing and retention.

The council has a clear transformation vision, articulated through the @PACE programme, which builds on previous initiatives and aims to centralise teams and improve delivery. The programme is seen as a positive culture change, with strong staff engagement and alignment to savings and productivity goals.

Innovation is a key theme, with successful use of AI and digital tools to deliver efficiencies. The council is described as “up for innovation,” with a creative organisational culture and a growing emphasis on outcome-focused KPIs. Overall, the council is committed to continuous improvement, with the ‘Year of Innovation’ and ‘Year of Creativity’ as well as Improvement Boards designed to bring a team of officers with different expertise together to problem solve issues.

The senior political and managerial leadership of the council should review and reflect on the findings and recommendations from this CPC.

To promote the principle of transparency, it is a requirement of the CPC process that the final report of the peer team is published in-full within three months of the review being completed. In this instance, this requires the report to be published no later than 3 January 2026. 

There is a requirement for Buckinghamshire Council to develop and publish an action plan within five-months of the peer team being onsite, no later than 3 March 2026. This action plan should provide clarity on the activity, milestones, and timelines that the council will work to in responding to the team’s findings. 

The action plan will also be central to the peer team’s re-engagement with Buckinghamshire Council through a progress review which is due to be completed and published by 3 October 2026.

The Ministry for Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) have published the Best Value Standards for Local Authorities. These standards expect every council to engage in a Corporate or Finance Peer Challenge at least every five-years. It is expected that Buckinghamshire Council would commission their next Corporate Peer Challenge no later than 30 September 2030.

In the meantime, Will Brooks, LGA Principal Adviser for the South East Region, is the main contact between your council and the Local Government Association. As outlined above, Will Brooks is available to discuss any further support you require and can be contacted on 

Will Brooks, LGA Principal Adviser for the South East Region

Email – [email protected]

Tel – 07949054421

CPC is a valued improvement and assurance tool that is delivered by the sector for the sector. It involves a team of senior local government councillors and officer peers undertaking a comprehensive review of key information and spending three days at the council to provide robust, strategic, and credible challenge and support.

CPC forms a key part of the improvement and assurance framework for local government. It is underpinned by the principles of Sector-led Improvement (SLI) put in place by councils and the LGA to support continuous improvement and assurance across the sector. These principles state that councils are responsible for their own performance; accountable locally, not nationally; share a collective responsibility for the performance of the sector; and rely on the LGA to provide the tools to support them. CPC is also key to councils in meeting their Best Value duty. UK Government expect all councils to have a CPC at least every five years. 

Scope and focus

The peer team considered the following five areas which form the core components of all CPCs. These are critical to councils’ performance and improvement.

1. Local priorities and outcomes - are the council’s priorities clear and informed by the local context? Is the council delivering effectively on its priorities? Is there an organisational-wide approach to continuous improvement, with frequent monitoring, reporting on and updating of performance and improvement plans?
2. Organisational and place leadership - does the council provide effective local leadership? Are there good relationships with partner organisations and local communities?
3. Governance and culture - Are there clear and robust governance arrangements? Is there a culture of challenge and scrutiny?
4. Financial planning and management - Does the council have a grip on its current financial position? Does the council have a strategy and a plan to address its financial challenges? What is the relative financial resilience of the council?
5. Capacity for improvement - Is the organisation able to bring about the improvements it needs, including delivering on locally identified priorities? Does the council have the capacity to improve?

As part of the five core areas outlined above, every CPC has a strong focus on financial sustainability, performance, governance, and assurance.

The peer challenge process

Peer challenges are improvement focused; it is important to stress that this was not an inspection. The process is not designed to provide an in-depth or technical assessment of plans and proposals. The peer team used their experience and knowledge of local government to reflect on the information presented to them by people they met, things they saw and material that they read. 

The peer team prepared by reviewing a range of documents and information to ensure they were familiar with the council and the challenges it is facing. This included a position statement prepared by the council in advance of the peer team’s time on site. This provided information on the local context at the council and what the peer team should focus on. It also included a comprehensive LGA Finance briefing (prepared using public reports from the council’s website) and a LGA performance report outlining benchmarking data for the council across a range of metrics. The latter was produced using the LGA’s local area benchmarking tool called LG Inform. 

The peer team spent three days onsite at the Buckinghamshire Council during which they gathered evidence, information, and views from more than 50 meetings, in addition to further research and reading and spoke to over 140 council staff together with councillors and external stakeholders.