LGA Corporate Peer Challenge: London Borough of Barking and Dagenham

A team of local government peers, led by the Local Government Association (LGA) delivered a Corporate Peer Challenge (CPC) of the London Borough of Barking and Dagenham (the council /LBBD / Barking and Dagenham) from Tuesday 14 to Friday 17 October 2025. This was the council’s second CPC, following a previous one in 2014. 

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. 

This report provides LBBD with feedback on the peer team’s findings, with illustrative quotes included in italics. 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.  

LBBD is an innovative and creative council that is well respected by its partners: in the words of one stakeholder ‘a progressive local authority looking for innovative solutions in challenging times.’ The council’s leadership on regeneration has had a significant and positive impact through estate renewal, external investment and the delivery of new housing which has helped the council to avoid soaring temporary accommodation costs seen elsewhere. There are numerous examples of strong practice in community-facing work and LBBD is adept at leveraging grant funding and partnerships within the borough, although it should reflect on how to join this work together and ensure it is tracking outcomes. 

Despite the challenges facing Barking and Dagenham, with high levels of deprivation, health inequalities, and a rapidly growing population fuelling demand for services, the borough has a good story to tell about its young, diverse population and opportunities for growth. The council should ‘move away from the language of decline’ and focus on developing and sharing a positive narrative; similarly, as it develops its recent Foundations for Change tackling poverty strategy, it should ensure a positive focus on aspiration, drawing on long-term interventions as well as linking in with health inequalities work. Alongside telling the story of its place, the council should be more vocal, both regionally and nationally, in highlighting the good work it is doing.

The council’s relatively new political and officer leadership are well regarded both inside and outside the organisation. Internally, leaders are taking steps to strengthen compliance following a period in which the council lost grip on governance and had no external audits, with the recent Firm Foundations training, ’Year of compliance’ programme and input from the new external auditors having a clear impact. The council will need to maintain momentum on this to ensure it reaches a point of greater assurance on governance, while also ensuring the focus does not hinder being an agile organisation.

Service improvement has also been a key focus, with evidence of improvement and examples of strong practice in service areas both previously and currently judged to require improvement. The council recently received a Care Quality Commission ‘Outstanding’ judgement for adult social care.

In taking steps to tackle specific service issues and governance challenges, LBBD is increasingly becoming a well-run council, although with lots more to do to embed and sustain this. Critically, the council is aware about where it has challenges and where to maintain focus to continue its improvement trajectory.

Financially, LBBD is in a stronger revenue position than others, with reserves above the council’s policy threshold and a smaller (if growing) MTFS gap than other councils have to close. However, there is no room for complacency: the £12.6m budget gap in 2026/27 is likely to rise, and there are increasing pressures in SEND, the high needs block and social care.

To help close the MTFS gap, the council should agree its approach to transformation, currently ‘in its infancy’, with a transformation budget, clarity about roles and responsibilities and clear savings targets / tracking all required. Increased capacity will be needed in the lean corporate centre to support this. Linked to this, the council should move quickly to bring further clarity and a clear road map to its emerging neighbourhood model. A significant amount of stock has been placed on the new model with expectations raised on a proposed new way of working which will fundamentally redesign services and change the way the organisation works with its partners and communities.

The level of borrowing / debt held by the council’s subsidiary companies, accrued in delivering the regeneration agenda, currently stands at around £1bn. This presents a significant financial risk to the council which, if not effectively managed, could overwhelm it. Although income from company assets is currently offsetting borrowing costs, changed economic conditions have impacted the viability of planned future projects and the council’s previous delivery approach. The council is undertaking a review of its Investment and Acquisitions Strategy (IAS), and moving to new models of delivery, through which it will need to identify a pipeline of future house building to avoid incurring temporary accommodation pressures. Significant work has been undertaken in recent years to stabilise this position.

Management of the companies’ debt, following the outcome of the IAS review, as well as oversight of the subsidiary companies – which has been strengthened over the past year – is clearly critical to achieving financial sustainability in the coming years. The council should ensure it utilises regular external challenge and support in this area to ensure robust and effective management of its financial position.

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

3.1 Develop the Barking and Dagenham story and tell it widely, with a positive narrative for your place. 

Accentuate the good things the area has going for it, with a more balanced story on the challenges, in proactively championing Barking and Dagenham in and beyond the local area.

3.2 Be more vocal in promoting the good work the council does, in London and nationally. 

Similarly, increase the visibility of the council across local government, highlighting LBBD’s strengths and good practice.

3.3 Work with staff and partners to clarify and take forward the full business case for the neighbourhood model. 

There is good awareness of the neighbourhood model, but a desire for more detail on what this will mean in practice. Work quickly to provide an overview and direction of travel as you develop more detailed plans, ensuring there is no slippage in the full business case timetable. 

3.4 Complete the review of the Investment and Acquisition Strategy, ensuring robust recommendations and actions which are subsequently implemented and tracked. Agree what’s next for regeneration in the borough and how you secure the pipeline of future housing delivery. 

Rising costs have impacted the viability of the council’s direct delivery approach to regeneration and housebuilding. The council will need to consider all options for ensuring its long-term financial sustainability, including reprofiling or cancelling projects, scaling back its own investments and working with partners to pursue new approaches to house building and regeneration in Barking and Dagenham.

3.5 Clarify the organisational approach to transformation, with a clear plan, budget and savings linked to the MTFS. Consider what investment is required in the corporate centre to support this. 

There is a need for clarity on the current approach to transformation, which is still in its early stages but critical to ensuring financial sustainability. Agree a strategy for transformation which is aligned to wider corporate strategies, and a costed plan to implement this.  

3.6 Continue the good work you are doing to embed compliance and maintain the narrative on why this is needed (but tackle system inefficiencies and bureaucracy).

Efforts to strengthen governance are having an impact. There is more to do and an ongoing need to outline why the council is doing it, but ensure approaches are proportionate and other inefficiencies are addressed.

3.7 Ensure the various good initiatives you are delivering are joined up into a coherent approach and that you are measuring their impact and improving outcomes. 

The council is involved in multiple positive projects and partnerships, with a range of services delivered at its community / family hubs. There is scope to bring this work together and better understand the impact it is having, while also ensuring clarity about how current initiatives align with the proposed model of neighbourhood working.

3.8 Ensure a focus on longer term interventions, aspiration and integration with health inequalities work as you develop the Foundations for Change approach beyond April 2026. 

The council’s recent Foundations for Change strategy sets out its short-term approach to tackling poverty. Ensure a positive focus on aspiration, system change and join-up with work on health inequalities, to develop the longer-term approach necessary to shift the dial on poverty.

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:

• Shokat Lal, Chief Executive, Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council
• Cllr Mo Butt, Leader, London Borough of Brent
• Angela Harrington, Director of Inclusive Economy, Manchester City Council
• Rob Henderson, Executive Director of People, Southampton City Council
• Darren Levy, Interim Director of Housing Regeneration, Brighton & Hove City Council
• Jon Ritchie, Director of Resources, North Tyneside Council
• Curtis Leung, Chief Executive Support Manager, West Midlands Combined Authority (shadow peer)
• Ellie Greenwood, Peer Challenge Manager, Local Government Association.

This section of the report provides detailed feedback along with additional recommendations related to the five core areas of focus. 

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. 

LBBD has a clear vision for its area, developed with residents and partners in 2017, which underpins the council’s 2023 corporate plan: work to refresh this is now underway ahead of a new corporate plan being developed after the 2026 election. There is good awareness of the vision and priorities both internally and externally, and an impressive performance framework used to drive service improvements. 

The council’s focus on regeneration has had demonstrable impact on the borough, although there has been a recent shift in emphasis to focus on population as much as place, with recognition that despite the council’s work, deprivation metrics have not shifted. Looking ahead, the council will need to balance the focus on both growth and people, maximising opportunities available to connect more residents to the benefits of growth.

The council is taking steps to address regulatory outcomes and recommendations for children’s services and housing, with evidence of progress in both; it recently achieved an ‘outstanding’ rating in adult social care.

In addition to key recommendation two (promote the good work the council does), seven (join up and track the impact of diverse initiatives) and eight (focus on longer term interventions, aspiration and integration with health inequalities in work to tackle poverty), we also recommend the council progress the following actions:

• Continue to develop the refreshed borough vision, ensuring all partners are sighted on this; join it up with related work on the neighbourhood model, so that it is embedded.
• Maintain momentum in driving improvements in children’s services and housing, with a focus on ensuring capacity in the system to manage SEND pressures and on maintaining the recent improvement in tenant satisfaction measures.
• Consider integrating finance / budget and risk reporting with performance reporting and moving to quarterly rather than six monthly performance reporting to Cabinet (in line both with many other councils and the existing approach to corporate health reporting).

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

LBBD is seen as ‘an ambitious council that knows its place’ and as having ‘a commitment to real change and improvement for residents.’

The council’s corporate plan 2023-26 has seven priorities, and is informed by the borough manifesto, Barking and Dagenham Together.  The council is working on an updated borough vision ‘our Barking and Dagenham – building communities and driving opportunities’, which will inform a new council corporate plan being produced after the 2026 election. The council should ensure these are aligned with the updated and extended MTFS expected to be developed following the outcome of the fair funding review / local government finance settlement.

There is good engagement in the development of key plans: the borough manifesto was co-produced with over 3,000 residents and partners, while consultation on the current corporate plan led to its priorities included being amended. The council’s One Borough Voice website is used to engage with residents.  As it refreshes the borough vision, the council should ensure all partners are sighted and join this up with related work on the neighbourhood model, which seeks to introduce a neighbourhood working and preventative approach to service delivery. 

The council has recently published a separate Equality, Diversity and Inclusion strategy, bringing greater clarity to its activity to achieve its statutory equality objectives. The executive team and scrutiny function are reviewing the action plan developed to implement the new strategy; the council’s Strategy Steering Group and Directors’ Group will play key roles in delivering the strategy. LBBD’s work in this area will be enhanced by its plan to benchmark itself against the Equality Framework for Local Government.

The council has been recognised as making innovative use of data, for example through its One View platform which provides a single view of households across five services. Service leads spoke positively about being able to access data and intelligence to inform their planning. The importance of accurately forecasting population needs to understand how the council can meet the needs of its community is reflected in a strategic risk on the council’s risk register.

Delivery against priorities and comparative performance

The council’s clear prioritisation of housing delivery and regeneration over the past decade has had positive outcomes to date, with 3,994 houses delivered over three years, relatively low numbers of people in temporary accommodation and £15bn investment into the borough.   However, with a more challenging economic context impacting viability, there is uncertainty about the scale of future house building. In developing a revised approach to new housing delivery, the council will need to ensure a pipeline of further development or risk developing the temporary accommodation challenges that have caused such challenges for other councils. 

In its role as a landlord, the council received a regulatory notice in 2022 following a self-referral to the Regulator of Social Housing. Since then, steady progress has been made in tackling the landlord compliance issues that were identified, while also seeing some improvement in tenant satisfaction measures achieved in 2024/25. ‘Fire Risk Assessment outstanding actions’ remain an area of risk, although a programme is in place to reduce them. Similarly, maintaining or improving Decent Homes numbers could become a risk unless adequate funding is identified to meet future investment needs, as outlined in the January 2025 Housing Revenue Account Business Plan Cabinet report the council will need to ensure ongoing focus on these issues.

The council has received three Ofsted ‘Requires Improvement’ grades since 2014, most recently in 2023. However, a focused visit in March 2025 noted improvements and impact from a more stable workforce, and the peer team heard of momentum in driving improvements. Despite the overall judgement, there are examples of excellence and strong outcomes for children in key areas, including exploitation, fostering and domestic abuse.  There was extremely positive feedback about the effective partnership between the council and local schools, driven by a culture of ambition, inclusion and aspiration for local children - ‘there is a real ambition for children and young people in Barking and Dagenham’ - borne out in strong educational outcomes, inclusive approaches and a range of innovation in very challenging local circumstances. 

A 2024 SEND inspection noted a strong partnership with children at the centre and areas of real innovation, and a culture of inclusion and collaboration. The council has high levels of alternative resource provision, available in around half of local schools, and is an exemplar of the expected direction of travel in the planned SEND white paper. However, the volume and complexity of SEND in a very young borough, coupled with lack of staffing and specialist capacity at the council, risks undermining the council’s strong relationship with local schools, as well as posing significant financial challenges; this area will need continued focus.

In relation to services for adults, the council recently received an ‘Outstanding’ judgement from the Care Quality Commission, one of only 3 awarded to date nationally. The peer team heard of strong joint working with health, with a successful bid to be a neighbourhood health pilot. The council has recently entered into a ten-year partnership with Queen Mary University London focusing on research-backed solutions to preventing and supporting long term conditions and supporting the design of neighbourhood working, the SHAPE Programme. The council is also working with Queen Mary dentistry school with the aim of establishing a world class dentistry school in Barking Town Centre from September 2026, which will give residents access to dental care as well as training opportunities. 

There are good examples of the council facilitating strong community-facing practice across the borough, including the Kindness Offensive (charitable food distribution operating from a derelict industrial site), ShowerBox (shower facilities for the homeless) and the Future Youth Zone offer. The community and family hubs bring together a wide range of activities and partners. Partners recognise that the council wants to co-produce, with multiple good examples of co-design and co-delivery. The peer team was impressed with what it saw, although felt that the council should think about how to join up the multiple initiatives it is involved in into a more coherent approach and ensure it works with partners to track the impact of these.

Tackling poverty is a priority: the council recently approved its Foundations for Change strategy. The council should ensure an emphasis on building aspiration, integrating with the neighbourhood model and driving system change as a core part of the longer-term approach it is developing beyond April 2026. It should also consider whether there is more it can do to better connect Barking and Dagenham residents with the benefits of regeneration in the borough and increase social value outcomes from council spend.  The peer team saw a number of test and learn approaches and there is a need to evaluate and build on those with the greatest impact.  There is recognition of the importance of tackling poverty and a commitment to doing so across partner organisations.

The peer team considered Barking and Dagenham’s LG Inform benchmarking data, which shows how the council compares with the average of their statistical nearest neighbours. Data reflect the council’s recent priorities and activity as well as the area’s demographics. For example, the council has a much higher than average total debt as a proportion of core spending power, but also an above average number of affordable homes delivered and lower than average number of households on the housing waiting list and in temporary accommodation.  Rates of childhood obesity, smoking prevalence and working age unemployment are all higher than average. Positively, children services benchmark well against statistical neighbours on key outcomes for children; child protection case review times and the number children subject to a child protection plan for a second time compare favourably with others.

From the council’s own performance data, the latest publicly available report for Q3 and Q4 2024-25 indicates 16 green, 15 amber, seven red rated metrics, with 16 unrated at the end of Q4. Half (27) of the metrics had a positive, 20 had a negative and seven had an unchanged or unrated direction of travel.

Is there an organisation-wide approach to continuous improvement? 

The council has a strong approach to performance management. Performance is monitored against the corporate plan outcomes framework’s 54 indicators; the council plans to review the framework and reporting approach to reflect the new local government outcomes framework once finalised.  Additionally, the council tracks corporate health measures, and there are service specific performance frameworks. 

The outcomes framework and corporate health measures are reported to the senior officer executive management team (EMT) on a quarterly basis, and to Cabinet and Overview and Scrutiny (O&S) every six months, with performance reports available on the council’s website. Performance is also discussed in meetings between Cabinet portfolio holders and strategic directors. Metrics are monitored using RAG and direction of travel ratings, with some benchmark data and detailed commentary provided alongside. Where metrics are red / amber rated and deteriorating, deep dives are commissioned to understand issues, manage risks and drive service improvement. These take place through performance and data insight portfolio meetings held between the cabinet member for Community Leadership and Engagement and the relevant strategic director and portfolio holder; they are reported to EMT and subsequently the Cabinet. Performance deep dives also inform the council’s scrutiny plan, with the director of strategy, responsible for performance, also the council’s statutory scrutiny officer.

Figures from the staff temperature check in summer 2025 and feedback to the peer team indicate a golden thread through the borough vision, corporate plan, service plans and individual objectives: 92 per cent of staff are aware of the council’s vision and 86 per cent know how the vision and priorities relate to their job. Service plans are developed annually between January-March to align with budget setting; they are then reviewed to identify activity in areas such as EDI and net zero, to pull together an organisational overview of these areas. The service planning timetable immediately precedes the council’s performance, feedback and development (PFD) conversations for individual staff, ensuring that staff objectives flow through from these. The PFD process is well embedded in the council.

The council has shown strong place leadership in driving regeneration in the borough and there is a good story to tell about the opportunities the area has as well as the challenges. The council works well with partners such as schools, health and the VCFSE, with scope to further develop stakeholder relationships and discussions to help drive place leadership on social value, net zero etc. LBBD should maintain efforts to ensure the consistency of partnerships strategically, operationally and across all services, with a continued focus on co-production and co-engagement, which has helped the council to leverage opportunities and external funding to benefit the borough.

Internally, the council’s new leadership is well regarded. EMT and leadership group (EMT and directors) are seen to be working effectively, and the directors group provides additional corporate focus.

In addition to key recommendation one (developing and telling a positive Barking and Dagenham story), we also recommend the council progress the following actions:

• Further develop the directors’ group and consider an equivalent forum for heads of service.
• Ensure all partners are sighted on the refresh of the borough vision, join this up with the ‘It Starts Here’ campaign and align with the development of the neighbourhood model.
• Consider doing more to engage with business and other key stakeholders, as well as leading discussions with partners on issues such as net zero.
• Consider strengthening your social value procurement weighting to 20 per cent and championing Barking and Dagenham as a London living wage area. This will provide more opportunities for residents from council spend and help tackle in-work poverty.
• Ensure consistency in the strength of partnership working both strategically and operationally, and in using co-design and co-production. Provide regular opportunities to share organisational best practice on engagement.

Does the council provide effective organisational leadership?

The council has relatively new political and managerial leadership, albeit with a long history within the organisation, seen as a ‘breath of fresh air.’ The leader and chief executive have a good working relationship, and both are well respected internally and outside the council: ‘the leader takes time to listen.’ The relationship between the wider Cabinet and EMT is collaborative; there are regular meetings between individual portfolio holders and strategic directors, while Cabinet and EMT meet through monthly cabinet member Group meetings.

EMT (comprising the chief executive, strategic directors, monitoring officer, director of strategy and transformation lead) meets weekly, except when the leadership group meets. The peer team heard positive feedback on how EMT operates, and that the golden triangle of the chief executive, monitoring officer and section 151 officer are working closely and effectively (see section 3).

The larger leadership group meeting under the current chief executive has been well received, with a forward plan of agenda items and external speakers: it is also helping to cascade messages through the organisation. A separate directors’ group has been established to empower directors to lead corporate programmes. The council should continue to develop this and ensure it focuses on strategic issues; it could also establish an equivalent heads of service group to provide a more service based / managerially focused forum and help further share messaging through the organisation. There are quarterly managers briefings with interactive Q&A sessions, as well as online staff roadshows for all staff: the peer team heard of a cascade of news and that people are aware of what’s happening in the organisation.

Are there good relationships with partners and local communities? How does the council lead its place?

The council has played a strong place shaping role over the last decade with demonstrable impact through developments in Barking Town Centre, at Barking Riverside and on the Dagenham East site, which includes the impressive Eastbrook film studio and University College London research facility. The council has proved adept at working in partnership to support the borough and / or secure external funding. Examples include the successful Heritage Lottery Fund bid, funding from Sport England to boost physical activity levels as well as the neighbourhood health pilot and Queen Mary University partnership referenced above.

As noted, the council is leading work to refresh the vision for the borough and develop a shared ambition for Barking and Dagenham. The peer team heard a lot about the challenges facing the area – notably deprivation, rapid population growth and high demand in areas such as SEND – but shared the view of stakeholders that there is an opportunity to ‘move away from the language of decline’ and highlight the opportunities available to an area with a young and diverse community and space to (literally) build on. The council should think about how to promote a positive story for its place, linking in with the embryonic ‘It starts here’ communications campaign and the development of the neighbourhood model. 

Partners are positive about the work of the council, and their relationships with it. LBBD is considered to be accessible, engaged and willing to listen to diverse perspectives - ‘very approachable, very open door.. the council can take challenge, they’re not defensive’ – with strong partnerships that have endured despite the challenging context facing all partners: ‘even in challenging times, our partnership work continues to grow and grow.’

The effectiveness of formal engagement structures between LBBD and its statutory partners in health, education and the emergency services is enhanced by informal engagement and close relationships. The peer team heard of good examples of joint working, including on recent emergencies. There is good awareness among partners of the council’s plans to develop the neighbourhood model.

In some areas, there was a sense that the strength of relationships at strategic level may not always be replicated consistently operationally, potentially due to capacity and communication constraints. For example, despite the committees in Common approach (the joint Health and Wellbeing Board and ICB place sub-committee) and strategic ambition, the number of section 75 agreements with health appeared limited, with a pooled Better Care Fund budget, out of hours service and mental health service. The council and its partners should ensure a clear vision, road map and joint understanding of what integration at place should look like, although significant changes within health may challenge that going forward. 

Although the Voluntary, Community, Faith and Social Enterprise sector is comparatively under-developed in Barking and Dagenham, relationships with the sector are also largely positive. The council is recognised for its support to the sector through its BD Giving grant fund and the social infrastructure support contract: a new VCFSE compact is also being developed. A recent trend since Covid has been strengthening relationships with local faith institutions, which form a major part of the non-statutory sector and reach into the different communities in Barking and Dagenham: the council will be able to draw on these in challenging times.

Again, the peer team heard some feedback that very positive senior relationships and a strategic focus on co-design and co-production are not always matched at operational level (particularly when staff change), or consistently across all services. Although few if any councils achieve complete consistency on this, it will be something for the council to continue to focus on. The peer team did however hear several examples of co-design and co-delivery with VCFSE organisations generating additional funding, for example the Sport England and Heritage Lottery funding.

The council could strengthen its relationships with the local business community which are not as strong as its other partnerships. Hosting business summits and breakfasts would provide a forum for businesses to engage with each other, with political and managerial leaders, and other partners such as further / higher education. Likewise, it could consider opportunities to bring local partners together to discuss specific issues such as net zero, building on the strong relationships developed with partners including the London Wildlife Trust and Trees for Climate. 

Finally, as a London living wage employer, the peer team felt that the council could use its place shaping role to promote Barking and Dagenham as a London living wage area, and work with local anchor institutions and other employers to encourage them to do the same. There is also scope to increase the social value weighting in the council’s procurement approach from ten to twenty per cent, in support of the council’s tackling poverty and inclusive growth priorities. Experience from other areas suggests that this is the level at which contractors seriously consider social value, as it can determine a contract award.  The council’s work with the VCFSE sector and local businesses can help ensure that they are sighted on opportunities in the local supply chain.

Under its own initiative and informed by helpful insight from its new external auditors, the council is taking steps to strengthen its governance and address weaknesses that had previously developed. There is broad buy-in to and understanding of the reasons for this: LBBD should maintain momentum internally and in terms of the council’s subsidiaries.

There are good relationships between members and officers, with a shared commitment and ambition to deliver improvements for residents.  There is a strong culture of member development at LBBD, with a need now to prepare for what comes next following the 2026 election.

In addition to key recommendation six (continuing work to embed compliance and be clear about why this is necessary), we also recommend the council progress the following actions:

• Support new independent members of the audit and risk committee.
• Consider the relative size of Cabinet portfolios and encourage political leaders to engage more with counterparts in other councils to learn and share expertise.
• Maintain recent efforts to reinvigorate staff networks and ensure chairs have sufficient time to support them.
• Work with other councils and partners to address staff safety concerns through robust risk assessment / health and safety considerations.

Are there clear and robust governance arrangements?

The council has taken steps over recent years to strengthen its corporate governance, with good evidence (through its most recent external audit report and staff feedback) this is having a positive impact.

It is clear that the council had previously lost grip on key governance and assurance matters over a period of time. The council itself recognised this internally, with the ‘Firm Foundations’ compliance training programme launched in summer 2024 to strengthen practice and accountability in a range of areas. Subsequently, in January 2025 the interim audit report for 2023/24 from the new external auditors Grant Thornton also identified a number of significant weaknesses and key recommendations for the council to address around financial sustainability, governance (scrutiny – see below) and improving economy, efficiency and effectiveness (relating to the council’s subsidiary companies). As it continues work in this area, the council should consider what led to previous weaknesses and satisfy itself that the key foundations of governance in the organisation would not allow this to happen again.

The council has maintained its focus on governance through the 2025 ‘Year of compliance’ improvement campaign and programme, intended to embed the highest standards of governance. With four areas of focus (financial management, procurement, business continuity and records management), this is overseen by a programme board reporting into the directors group. It is clear that there has been strong leadership on this issue from EMT supported by the new directors group. Close working and regular meetings between the golden triangle officers is also supporting the renewed focus in this area.

Staff and managers recognise the need to prioritise compliance, but the peer team heard some concerns about bureaucracy and systems potentially stifling activity and innovation. It was not clear whether these were perceptions rather than actual barriers, and in some cases the inefficiencies flagged may relate to issues between IT systems rather than processes (the peer team heard that the council’s ‘people are good [but] systems aren’t great’). The council should continue to be clear about why strong but proportionate governance and financial grip is important in protecting the council from greater financial or assurance challenges, while ensuring that systems and processes do not stifle innovation.

The council has an Assurance Group, chaired by the Monitoring Officer, which meets bi-monthly to scrutinise governance matters. The group is currently being reviewed with recommendations due for consideration by EMT and the directors’ group; the council should ensure the group helps maintain a stronger grip on governance matters and avoids previous issues re-emerging.

The council’s constitution is kept under continuous review and was most recently updated in May 2025 when the council restructured its committees: to align with CIPFA best practice, the audit and standards committee has been split into separate audit and risk / standards committees. As independent members are appointed to the audit and risk committee, the council should ensure they are effectively supported into these roles.

The council’s draft Annual Governance Statement (AGS) for 2024/25 was reviewed by the audit and risk committee in September 2025. The AGS identifies a number of governance issues, including a high-level commentary on these, but does not have a detailed action plan to report back on the following year. The council should in future include an action plan to address improvement areas – this was a suggestion made recently by the audit and risk committee and is also in line with CIPFA guidance. The peer team heard positive feedback on corporate input and buy-in to the AGS, with directors producing statements on governance in their areas; these were collated and presented to the council’s Assurance Group.

Similarly, the peer team also heard of corporate buy-in to the audit planning process. The small in-house internal audit function is well-regarded; the council plans to recruit to additional roles in the team to reduce reliance on external interims to supplement internal audit capacity. With the former head of assurance having recently left the council, the council will need to ensure a smooth transition given the importance of this team in providing assurance about the impact of governance and compliance initiatives and the effectiveness of internal controls.

Risk management has been another area of recent focus. The risk management strategy was refreshed in 2024/25, and an EMT risk management workshop in August 2024 reviewed the council’s strategic risks, leading to a revised set of risks summarised in a ‘risk on a page’ approach. Risk management has been incorporated into service planning, with training and awareness raising undertaken.

Subsidiary companies

The council has a ‘complex structure of subsidiary companies’ established to deliver regeneration and housing (Be First), housing management (Reside), energy (BD Energy) and various services (BD Trading Partnership/ BD Group). Grant Thornton’s 2023/24 report raised concern that these had delivered poor financial and non-financial performance, flagging significant weakness in arrangements. The council has since led a review of company governance and taken a number of steps to address this. 

Alongside changes in company personnel, governance and direction to strengthen performance, the council has taken steps to ensure robust oversight of its subsidiaries. This includes a refresh of the Shareholder Panel (the advisory panel intended to support Cabinet decision making as a company shareholder), with a new chair, members and the introduction of quarterly reporting to Cabinet, with company executives questioned by Overview and Scrutiny (O&S) as well as the Panel. The audit and risk committee will have greater oversight of the risks arising from the subsidiary companies, receiving updates on significant findings or risks arising from external audit findings and updates on company activity: as part of this, it should seek to assure itself of the effectiveness of risk management by the council’s subsidiaries. 

Grant Thornton’s second external audit report, produced in September 2025 and covering the year 2024/25, recognised progress on the issues identified in 2023/24, while highlighting the need to assess whether changes have led to lasting improvements. The audit did however identify further significant weaknesses, key and improvement recommendations, considered in later sections of this report. 

Is there a culture of challenge and scrutiny?

Relationships between members and officers at Barking and Dagenham are open and positive; staff spoke of good joint working with portfolio holders and ward councillors who are supportive but challenging. At the most senior level, there is strong and collaborative working between the Cabinet and EMT. There is however an imbalance in the size of portfolio areas across the Cabinet, which may benefit from a review.

As noted, the 2023/24 external audit report highlighted a significant weakness in arrangements relating to scrutiny. The council has since worked with the Centre for Governance and Scrutiny (CfGS) to undertake training and target improvements, and the peer team heard the view that scrutiny is now operating more effectively; the 2024/25 external audit included a recommendation to assess the lasting impact of this. With one main O&S committee and a separate health scrutiny committee, the council may wish to consider making wider use of task and finish groups and / or sub-committees, informed by risk and performance information. The council should also start to plan now its approach to scrutiny in the more politically diverse Assembly expected following the 2026 election. As a wider point, it should also assure itself that its constitution and supporting procedures are fit for purpose in preparation for that context.

The CfGS training fits into a strong offer of member development at Barking and Dagenham; until recently, the council had charter plus accreditation status (this has been discontinued for cost reasons). The council offers a mix of internal and external training, utilising LGA courses, in-house thematic training and all-member briefings on key issues. For the council’s political leadership, this could be supplemented through visits to and regular engagement with portfolio holders at other councils to support awareness of good and developing practice elsewhere.

Staff culture

There is a positive staff culture at LBBD: the peer team repeatedly heard from newer staff in the council that there is a friendly and welcoming culture, with a real commitment to the local place and a commitment to doing a good job for residents that shines through.

The council has recently reinvigorated its approach to the five staff networks, with clearer senior sponsorship of each network and strong support from the chief executive. This impetus should be maintained, with consideration given to whether network chairs have sufficient time to support their roles and how the networks can proactively put forward ideas as well as respond to developing policies and strategies.

The peer team picked up some concerns from staff about the safety of those working in frontline roles, in line with other councils. The council tracks, investigates and reports on violence and aggression, and ran a public campaign highlighting the voice of the workforce; internal communications work has emphasised the council’s zero tolerance approach and the importance of staff reporting incidents. A review of the arrangements to support staff with violence and aggression is planned for early 2026, including assessing hot spot locations and services, reviewing policy, investigation techniques, conflict avoidance training and post incident support. The council should maintain ongoing monitoring to ensure incidents continue on a downward trajectory, and take swift action if they do not. As well as working with staff and trade unions, the council could consider working with other authorities and partners on this; it should also ensure this work is clearly communicated to staff.

LBBD has benefitted from a stronger revenue position than other councils in recent years, with investment in house building helping it avoid high temporary accommodation costs. The borrowing incurred to fund this investment is substantial and statistically, as a percentage of core spending power, the council has one of the highest debt levels in the country. The council is satisfied however that the borrowing on its General Fund (£180m) and HRA (£295m) are in line with other authorities. The significant majority of the debt (£1.078bn) has been incurred through the Investment and Acquisition Strategy to fund house building and regeneration, with the costs of this met from income on around 4,000 housing assets built in the borough, rather than the General Fund. 

The risk to the council from the level of debt is significant. Decisions on the future of the council’s IAS will be critical, and this area will need ongoing careful management, with regular external input and advice to provide challenge and help avoid the risk of optimism bias that has been seen elsewhere in similar circumstances. The council will also need to carefully manage growing revenue pressures in SEND and other areas and ensure clarity about the savings expected from its transformation programme (and their deliverability). 

The finance team should be embedded from the outset in the development of the transformation programme, neighbourhood model and other corporate initiatives. Capacity issues within the finance team are being addressed, and the council has benefitted from an experienced section 151 officer working well with the chief executive and monitoring officer to bring greater grip and a focus on compliance.

In addition to key recommendation four (completing the review of the IAS and agreeing what’s next for regeneration in the borough), we also recommend the council progress the following actions:

• Ensure ongoing careful management of the council’s debt and trading companies.
• Clarify the Housing Revenue Account (HRA) funding gap.
• Identify savings to close the MTFS gap; consider bringing forward the budget cycle for 2026/27 following the outcome of the fair funding review.
• Push BDO, via Public Sector Audit Appointments (PSAA), for a swift resolution to the audit dispute and missing audit opinions for 2019/20 to 2022/23.

Does the council have a clear understanding of its financial position? 

1. The council has a three-year MTFS running to 2028/29, with plans to extend this to five years following the outcome of the fair funding review. With the review outcome and finance settlement expected in December, the council could consider bringing forward its budget planning cycle for 2026/27 to enable earlier discussions between senior officers and cabinet members during late spring and summer 2026.
2. In January 2025, Grant Thornton’s 2023/24 interim report highlighted a risk to financial sustainability linked to future budget gaps. The council subsequently ended 2024/25 with a £1m underspend, following management actions to tackle the earlier forecast £17m overspend, and set a balanced budget for 2025/26 with no planned use of reserves. GT’s September 2025 interim report for 2024/25 noted ‘renewed focus and understanding of the financial pressures facing the council shown by both senior officers and members’ but continued to identify a significant weakness around plans to address funding gaps: the MTFS forecast budget gap is £12.6m in 2026/27 (although this is expected to increase), £15m in 2027/28 and £16.8m in 2028/29. 

The council has a General Fund reserve of £14.9m, above its policy threshold of £12m but with plans to replenish reserves and review the adequacy of reserve levels as part of the 2026/27 budget setting - a sensible approach given the budget gap. In terms of its 2024/5 outturn, LBBD’s reserve levels, MTFS budget gap, housing revenue account (HRA) and dedicated schools grant balances are in a stronger position than others. However, the council nevertheless faces a number of significant risks.

The most serious risk facing the council is its level of borrowing, with total debt standing at £1.553bn. More than two thirds of the debt relates to the Investment and Acquisition Strategy and specifically investment in local housing and regeneration. The level of IAS borrowing (£1.078bn) makes the council a significant outlier against its CIPFA near neighbours in terms of overall debt; General Fund and HRA borrowing are a relatively small proportion of total debt at £180m and £295m respectively.

Careful management is required to continue to match income from housing and commercial assets with the borrowing and other costs, particularly in an environment of relatively high long term interest costs. To date the council has managed this to avoid any adverse impact on the General Fund revenue budget. However, the subsidiaries have not generated the expected dividends, and increased borrowing and building costs have impacted the viability of further planned projects, as well as impacting on MTFS income assumptions for the council. New projects are paused and a current review of the IAS is considering options for schemes that are already underway but now less viable, as well as options for longer term delivery: this review is expected to report to Cabinet in March/April 2026. The IAS reserve is now almost fully utilised, meaning future costs will fall to the council’s general fund. 

The exhaustion of the reserve and level of borrowing pose significant financial risks to the council. The section 151 officer, supported by the wider leadership team, must ensure there is consistent corporate understanding of these risks and the need to mitigate them. The issue will need to be carefully managed following the conclusion of the review of the IAS and the council should ensure regular, robust external challenge of its assumptions and plans to avoid the risk of optimism bias seen in other councils with high borrowing levels. Strengthened oversight of the subsidiaries (detailed above) will need to be maintained to ensure they are maximising returns and minimising risks to the council.

In relation to the revenue budget, too, the council faces a more challenging picture, particularly in relation to SEND and the high needs block of the DSG, which will also need careful planning and management. The council has a good track record on delivering planned savings to date but will need to continue to do so in the coming years: clarification of the transformation programme is an important component of this (see section five).

Does the council have a strategy and plan to address its financial challenges?

The review of the IAS is intended to identify recommendations to ensure the council’s borrowing remains on a sustainable footing, with the council also exploring alternative vehicles (such as joint ventures) for delivering housing and regeneration projects.  However, the review is not yet complete. The council should quickly complete a robust review of the IAS and agree the way forward and be prepared to stop doing things it had previously committed to if this ensures financial sustainability.

The council has a small capital programme outside of the IAS, equal to around £500m split roughly equally between the general fund and HRA. For the foreseeable future, the council expects to focus on business critical investment only in its capital programme.

On transformation, the council does not yet have a sufficiently clear transformation plan to address wider revenue budget issues and address the MTFS budget gap. As outlined in the next section, agreeing its approach to transformation and developing detailed plans should be a priority for the council.

The council is clearly benefitting from the appointment of its new external auditors Grant Thornton, after a long period without an external audit opinion following a dispute with previous auditors BDO over a pensions transaction. The council should continue to push BDO, including via PSAA, for a swift resolution to this and for the missing audit opinions for 2019/20 to 2022/23, to allow Grant Thornton to formally commence their financial statements work. 

Increasing the capacity and resilience of the finance team was a key recommendation from Grant Thornton’s 2024/25 value for money report, and the council has now implemented a new team structure. There is a sense of greater financial grip in the organisation, with a highly experienced section 151 officer in post since 2024 following a period of interims, and the positive impact of the Firm Foundations / Year of compliance. Financial regulations have been updated, and enhanced forecasting and variance reporting introduced. Finance business partners meet monthly with budget managers, with positive feedback about the support provided. Budget monitoring is reported to EMT and discussed with the finance portfolio holder on a monthly basis and reported to Cabinet every other month: going forward this could be integrated with the council’s performance framework.

Managing the council’s financial pressures will require the strengthened finance team to work closely with the rest of the organisation, with ongoing collaboration across EMT and all services playing their part.  It will be important that finance officers are embedded in the early stages of all key strategies, including the neighbourhood model and transformation.  This needs to be more than a financial ‘gatekeeper’ role, with the team and section 151 officer playing a key, proactive corporate role in strategic planning. 

Senior leaders at LBBD will also need to assure themselves that there is full organisational awareness of the organisation’s financial challenges, in terms of both revenue and the IAS risks, as well as ensuring succession planning for the finance team maintains the improvements made recently.

HRA finance

The 2024/25 outturn on the council’s HRA showed a £10.6m underspend, increasing the general reserve to £25.6m: the audit and risk committee sought a report on why this had occurred. With an underspend showing for 2025/26 at period three, and rolled forward slippage placing pressure on capacity, the council is considering reprofiling its budget, raising some concerns about both modelling and capacity to deliver – an issue the committee will with to keep under review.

Grant Thornton’s 2023/24 VfM commentary included an improvement recommendation about HRA financial sustainability and planning: the council subsequently developed and approved a new 30-year HRA business plan alongside the 2025/26 budget in January. The viability of the business plan is based on an agreed future sum for capital expenditure but the council is only part way through a stock condition survey and does not yet have a final figure for what is required for stock maintenance and improvement. The council will need to quantify the amount needed for stock investment as soon as possible and, if there is a HRA funding gap, reach a judgement about how to balance this gap with the risk of failing to comply with the RSH regulatory notice.

The council has multiple strengths to build on in seeking to improve further, including its staff, creativity and effective use of data and digital approaches. The small size of its corporate centre and a wider sense of stretch are constraints, however, and LBBD may need to consider investing in additional resource in key areas.

The council needs to focus on strengthening procurement and contract management. It also needs to quickly agree a corporate approach to transformation and on the basis of that, develop a strategy and plan for transformation with a supporting budget and target savings aligned to the MTFS. Linked to this, it needs to start to bring clarity to what the neighbourhood model will mean in practice, identifying the implications for workforce development and digital solutions needed to make this a reality.

In addition to key recommendations three (taking forward the neighbourhood model) and five (clarifying the organisational approach to transformation), we also recommend the council progress the following actions:

• Use the positive story Barking and Dagenham has to tell to develop an employer brand that helps address recruitment and retention issues.
• Ensure that strong workforce planning and development is available to support the development of roles and skills in the neighbourhood model; draw on the social partnership model with trade unions.
• Review whether the corporate centre and other areas need greater capacity to move forward, as well as necessary investment in systems.
• Continue work to increase diversity at all levels of the organisation.
• Rapidly progress work to strengthen procurement and contract management once a new service lead is appointed.

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

In seeking to improve, the council will be able to draw on the strengths of its workforce - ‘the passion and commitment of staff is unwavering in Barking and Dagenham…going above and beyond in difficult circumstances’ - and their understanding of the council’s ambitions. Staff survey results and feedback to the peer team indicate good staff awareness of their roles in supporting delivery of the council’s priorities. The council’s DRIVE (Deliver, Respond, Inspire, Value and Engage) values are considered to be well embedded within the organisation: understood and ‘lived’ by staff.

The council’s new starters reflect the diversity of the local population and there is an impressive induction approach in which staff are taken on a full tour of the borough. The council is making good use of apprenticeships and now offers a third year for its Impact graduates, encouraging them to stay within the organisation. These initiatives are important, because LBBD has experienced recruitment and retention challenges, with staff leaving for better paid jobs in nearby boroughs and further afield. The council should think about developing and promoting an employer brand, focusing on its positive borough story and reputation for innovation to try to address this issue.  

The peer team heard a lot about the council’s ‘openness to innovation and new ways of doing things, a creativeness’, with a clear sense of agility in a lean organisation. The council is a data rich organisation, with the One View platform - a single household view across different services - widely recognised as strong practice. It has taken a sensible approach to the use of digital and artificial intelligence; not rushing to adopt costly external products but developing its own in-house solutions, including the B&D Notes tool supporting front line workers to transcribe and produce case summaries (equivalent to Magic Notes) and an adult social care ‘bot’ to triage emails to the correct inbox. However, there was some feedback about the council’s systems creating barriers. The forthcoming digital strategy will need to consider required investment and link into the council’s wider approach to transformation (see below) as well as thinking about how to upskill staff in the modern technology the council will need to use in future.

The 2024/25 external audit report highlighted a need to strengthen procurement governance by aligning the procurement strategy to the corporate plan and enhancing oversight of this area. The need for stronger procurement and contract management is widely recognised but also immediate, with a number of waivers having been issued in recent years and a no assurance internal audit opinion on contract management. The council is currently developing a new procurement strategy and recruiting a head of procurement; both will need to land quickly within the organisation in order to address the challenges in this area. As noted, the council should consider strengthening social value within the new procurement strategy.

The emerging neighbourhood model is a key pillar of the council’s approach to improvement and transformation. Following recent Cabinet approval to begin developing the full business case, there is good understanding of the need for change and awareness about the model among members, staff and partners including the VCSFE: ‘the model has landed…the neighbourhood plan is one of the biggest opportunities.’ However, there is a lack of clarity about what it will mean in practice, or how it will reduce demand and / or save money. The council should move quickly to produce a ‘plan on a page’ overview of the direction of travel and integrate more detailed planning with the council’s wider transformation plan.

Based around a digital first approach, connected communities (utilising the VCFSE and community hubs), neighbourhood teams for those who need more help and ultimately statutory care if sufficient help isn’t available in the community, the council may determine that this preventative model requires a radically different approach to existing roles and responsibilities. It will need to ensure strong workforce planning and development capacity is in place to deliver this if so: LBBD can also draw on its consultative social partnership model with the trade unions in taking this forward.

Does the council have the capacity to improve?

As a generally lean organisation with a small corporate centre, LBBD is widely seen to be ‘punching above our weight’ but stretched across a range of services. With important organisation-wide initiatives including the neighbourhood model and transformation to deliver, the council will need to consider whether there are areas where additional capacity is needed to help the organisation move forward and deliver effective change. As noted above, investment may also be required if systems are hindering service improvements. 

There is a pressing need (highlighted in Grant Thornton’s 2024/25 value for money report) for the council to agree its future approach to transformation and closing budget gaps, with the current transformation programme in its very early stages and not clear to the organisation. Confidence in how well change is managed was the lowest scoring metric in the council’s recent staff temperature check; the peer team heard that previous approaches to transformation in the council have left a lingering legacy. It is important the council learns from but is not stymied by previous experience and critical that it clarifies roles and responsibilities between the corporate centre and services. The council should rapidly develop a transformation strategy and plan, with a vision for what the organisation will look like in three to five years’ time, supported by a transformation budget and savings plan linked to the MTFS.

In developing its neighbourhood model and transformation strategy, part of the future change journey should focus on generating excitement about the future, ensuring an organisational culture that matches the ambition for its place and is confident to embrace change: ‘you’ve got to have a dream…and we’ve started dreaming again.’

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 17 January 2026.

There is a requirement for LBBD to develop and publish an action plan within five-months of the peer team being onsite, no later than 17 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 LBBD through a progress review which is due to be completed and reported on by 17 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 LBBD would commission their next Corporate Peer Challenge no later than October 2030.

In the meantime, Mona Sehgal, Principal Adviser for London ([email protected] / 07795 291006), is the lead contact between your council and the Local Government Association, supported by Ellie Greenwood, Senior Regional Adviser ([email protected] / 07795 413660). As outlined above, Mona is available to discuss any further support you require.

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 four days onsite at Barking and Dagenham during which they gathered evidence, information, and views from almost 60 meetings, speaking to over 130 council staff, councillors and external stakeholders, in addition to further research and reading.