Agenda item

The Executive Councillor for Resident Services and Corporate Performance, Councillor N J Hunt to present the refreshed Corporate Plan for approval by the Council. 

(The Plan was considered at the meeting of the Overview and Scrutiny (Performance and Growth) Panel on 1st July 2026 and Cabinet on 14th July 2026 and the Executive Leader will provide an update on the Cabinet’s deliberations).

In conjunction with a report by the Project Manager for Transformation & Corporate Reporting (a copy of which is appended in the Minute Book), the Executive Councillor for Resident Services and Corporate Performance, Councillor N Hunt presented the Corporate Plan Refresh 2026 report. He set out the administration’s strategic priorities and resource allocation. The Plan retained its three core priorities: improving quality of life, creating a better Huntingdonshire for future generations, and delivering core services effectively.

Key actions included expanding One Leisure provision, improving housing standards, bringing empty homes back into use, increasing support for care leavers, and helping residents access financial assistance. It was noted that frontline services would be protected and that Overview and Scrutiny (Performance & Growth) Panel comments had been considered.

Councillor N Hunt commended the refreshed Corporate Plan to Council.

Councillor S Mokbul left the meeting at 10.23pm.

Councillor S Mokbul rejoined the meeting at 10.25pm

The Executive Leader, Councillor S Conboy seconded the motion and reserved her right to speak.

Councillor R Martin stated that he could not support the refreshed Corporate Plan and highlighted that concerns had also been raised during Overview and Scrutiny (Performance and Growth) Panel. He questioned the timing of the review, noting that a Corporate Plan had been approved only a few months earlier and that the outcome of the Local Government Reorganisation (LGR) decision was imminent. He argued that the Plan should be deferred until after the LGR announcement, when the implications for the Council's future structure and priorities would be clearer. He suggested that the existing Corporate Plan should remain in place in the meantime and urged the administration to reconsider and bring forward a revised Plan at a later date.

Councillor N Sarkies left the meeting at 10.28pm.

Councillor N Sarkies rejoined the meeting at 10.29pm.

Councillor R Coogan questioned the timing of the Corporate Plan review ahead of the Local Government Reorganisation decision. He argued that the Plan’s priorities did not adequately reflect residents’ priorities and expressed concern about the absence of clear performance measures for some objectives. He advocated placing greater emphasis on delivering value for money and high-quality frontline services. He also questioned the prominence of carbon reduction objectives within the Plan, suggesting that the Council should focus on practical environmental measures and core service delivery. He suggested that delivering effective services to residents should be the Council’s primary priority.

Councillor A Bulat queried comments that there was a lack of appetite within central government to fund local authorities adequately, citing recent increases in local government funding and reforms intended to provide greater financial certainty for Councils.

Councillor A Bulat expressed concern at reports that Members of the administration had raised objections to the Corporate Plan, stating that administration Members would ordinarily be expected to support it. However, she noted that she broadly supported the Plan, observing that it largely built upon the previous Corporate Plan and the work undertaken by the former administration. Accordingly, she confirmed that she would support the proposal.

Councillor R Tomlinson referred to the Local Government Reorganisation (LGR) timeline set out in the Corporate Plan and questioned whether the Council had sufficient capacity to deliver the proposed actions alongside the additional work required as part of the reorganisation process.

Noting that only 33 of 67 actions had been completed in the previous year, he expressed concern that the 57 actions contained within the refreshed Plan were not realistic and suggested that some objectives may not be achievable given the demands of LGR.

The Executive Leader, Councillor S Conboy stated that the Corporate Plan provided an important framework for officers and guides the delivery of day-to-day services. She advised that the Plan had been developed with Officers and was considered deliverable within existing resources.

Whilst acknowledging that Local Government Reorganisation (LGR) would place additional demands on the Council, Councillor S Conboy stated that preparations were already underway and that every effort would be made to ensure that business-as-usual services were maintained. She noted that further work relating to LGR would be brought forward separately. She emphasised that the refreshed Corporate Plan had been streamlined to focus on key priorities and objectives and expressed confidence that it was both realistic and deliverable. She confirmed that the Council would continue to progress both the Corporate Plan and LGR requirements, regardless of the outcome of the forthcoming LGR announcement.

Councillor P Gammons left the meeting at 10.39pm.

Councillor P Gammons rejoined the meeting at 10.41pm.

In closing the debate, Councillor N Hunt reaffirmed his view that local government remained under significant financial pressure and maintained that central government funding was insufficient to meet increasing demands on Councils.

He rejected suggestions that the ordering of the Council’s priorities implied differing levels of importance, reiterating that all three priorities were equally weighted. In response to comments regarding carbon reduction objectives, he noted that a number of climate-related initiatives had generated financial savings for the Council, citing energy savings achieved through solar panel installations at One Leisure sites.

He concluded that the Corporate Plan provided clear direction for Officers and supported the delivery of the administration’s objectives, and urged Council to support the Plan.

Prior to the vote, the Chair advised Council that three Members had left the meeting during the debate and, based on advice received, would not be eligible to vote on the item. A point of order was then raised querying whether, under the Constitution, Members were only required to be present at the time of the vote.

The Chair agreed that the constitutional position should be checked and adjourned the meeting to obtain clarification before proceeding to the vote.

The meeting adjourned at 10.42pm.

The meeting resumed at 10.54pm.

The Elections and Democratic Services Manager and Deputy Monitoring Officer advised that the Council’s constitutional position remained unchanged and that Members who had left the chamber during the debate should not vote, as they had not heard the full discussion.

The Chair ruled that Councillors S Mokbul, N Sarkis and P Gammons would not be permitted to vote on the item. Councillor R Tomlinson queried the ruling in relation to Councillor P Gammons, who had left during the right of reply, but legal advice confirmed that the right of reply formed part of the debate..

Having been moved and seconded, and upon being put to the vote, it was

RESOLVED

a) that the refreshed Corporate Plan (attached at Appendix 1 of the report) be approved; and

b) that the Key Performance Indicator changes (attached at Appendix 4  of the report) be approved.