Independent report

Report of the review into the Slough Borough Council Intervention

Published 15 October 2026

Applies to England

Dame Mary Ney DBE
Will Godfrey
April 2026

Executive summary

Slough is a place with an economy worth around £9 billion, with significant prospects for growth. It has excellent transport connectivity including National Rail, the Elizabeth Line and a local bus network, and is sited on the M4 corridor. It is the home of the biggest trading estate in Europe, with global companies and businesses that generate significant economic prosperity for the UK notably in AI and data management. It will form a part of Heathrow’s forthcoming expansion. Slough has the ability and the appetite to provide substantial numbers of new homes, including on grey belt, to contribute to the demand for increased house building in London and the South East. Slough has the ingredients to be able to punch above its weight in terms of growth, and this potential should be part of its strategy to achieve sustainability

Slough’s population has increased by 13% in the past decade and is now estimated at 167,359. It has the second youngest population in the country with 25% of residents aged 15 or under. The town is also ethnically diverse with 44% of residents born outside of the UK. It has pockets of severe deprivation and low healthy life expectancy.

Slough Borough Council has struggled with issues of financial sustainability, good governance and leadership, and with mediocre performance in some, but not all, services for some years. However, the council will benefit from the outcome of the Fair Funding Review 2.0, which recognises Slough’s level of deprivation and will assist its ability to invest in services.

The council has been tackling its areas of weakness through intervention arrangements in Children’s Services since 2014, and across the whole council since 2021. Whilst these interventions working alongside the council have had some success, there is concern that the improvement journey is plateauing. This Review has been asked to consider the current position and the possible way forward.

There is no doubt that being in various forms of intervention for such an extensive period can be debilitating and create a degree of organisational trauma, which impacts the momentum and pace of improvement. The need for robust measures to address the council’s financial pressures has also impacted the ability to invest in service improvement. The Review found that overall this has resulted in a sense of helplessness, and sometimes over dependence on Commissioners to problem solve and drive change. Whilst this may be appropriate at the start of an intervention, the lack of a sense of achievement and exit from intervention is now leading to a loss of confidence across the organisation.

Therefore, the next stage of Slough’s recovery should signal a change of direction and be focused on:

• A new positive narrative for Slough focused on the potential for growth and regeneration, which will build prosperity and opportunity for residents. This will additionally contribute to the council’s financial sustainability via improved council tax base and business rates growth, backed by support for the council to accelerate the delivery of regeneration projects.
• The new narrative should assist in attracting and retaining a strengthened bespoke fixed term Senior Leadership team which can lead the council through to exit from intervention in two years. This team should provide robust grip and control, sound progress of the MTFS and the Transformation Plan, a strong improvement trajectory in Children’s Services including SEND, an improved decision-making climate, and a renewed focus on growth. It also needs to include significant investment in an IT and digital infrastructure strategy to address weaknesses in BAU systems, data capture and security.
• A stepped back Commissioner regime to empower the council and build confidence, whilst retaining oversight to support the new bespoke senior officer leadership, to provide assurance on progress in meeting milestones and meeting the criteria of an exit strategy. This should include a plan to support members through the embedding of the new political administration post elections in May 2027. This plan should focus on the establishment of bespoke member – officer working patterns, and a rhythm that facilitates strategic leadership, clarity on priorities, timely decision-making and focus on continuous improvement of the basics.
• HMG measures to incentivise and support the long-term delivery of growth projects and financial sustainability.

Whilst there are some risks to this approach, it is preferred to the risks of the alternative of a more hands-on commissioner team running the council, which would further debilitate it. This approach will only succeed if the council takes ownership of its improvement via a strong and visible senior officer leadership team.

The Review considers that at this stage of improvement, pursuing local government reorganisation options in Slough would provide an unwanted distraction and diversion of limited strategic capacity away from a focus on improvement. Resources would be better spent on progressing financial sustainability and improvement through the prioritisation of Slough’s growth and regeneration potential. At the point of any future reorganisation, Slough would be better placed to be an attractive partner in any merged configuration.

Overall, the Review considers that the proposals set out in this report provide a good chance of success. The Review was encouraged by the commitment of members and officers to achieving improvement and the delivery of good services for the people of Slough.

Introduction

1. Slough Borough Council has been under Ministry of Housing Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) Best Value Intervention since December 2021, which was extended in November 2024 with a Managing Director Commissioner model, to expire in November 2026. Following an ‘inadequate’ Children’s Social Care Ofsted judgement in 2014, the Department for Education (DfE) issued a statutory direction and appointed a Children’s Commissioner. DfE additionally intervened in Special Educational Needs (SEND) provision in 2021. In 2025, the DfE intervention in Children’s Services moved from a Commissioner to an Advisor model, with a separate SEND Commissioner put in place. In 2025 Ofsted reported an Area for Priority Action on keeping in touch with care leavers, the response to which was incorporated into the Children’s Services intervention.

2. Due to concerns that Slough’s improvement journey had been inconsistent, and taking account of the MHCLG Commissioners’ Seventh Report, which outlined concerns that the pace of progress had stalled, MHCLG determined to establish an external advisory review to assess the situation and identify potential routes forward to assist ministerial decision making. The Review would also reflect any wider lessons learned and would take account of the position of the DfE intervention.

3. The full terms of reference of the Review are set out at Appendix A but in summary cover 3 areas:

1) Review of the progress in improvement at Slough:

• understanding the causes of Slough’s inconsistent recovery journey through the intervention period, including consideration of the impact of senior officer turnover, political instability and financial pressures on the council’s improvement trajectory
• identifying key risks to improvement within the council and intervention model, including achieving long term financial sustainability
• considering implications of Slough’s position for HMG’s wider interventions approach in local government

2) Options for immediate support to the Council:

• assessing tools to expedite SBC’s improvement journey, up to and beyond the scheduled end of Best Value directions in November 2026
• identifying improvements to joint working between MHCLG and DfE appointees to support a single HMG approach to Slough

3) Slough’s future:

• considering the long-term viability of SBC on its current footprint
• exploring long-term opportunities for the borough of Slough, ensuring its economic potential is realised to the benefit of its citizens. This should include identifying possible mechanisms to strengthen Slough’s partnerships with local stakeholders and HMG.

4. The Review was undertaken by Dame Mary Ney DBE and Will Godfrey between 5th March and 30th April 2026. The work of the Review is detailed in Appendix B, but in summary it:

• considered the documentation of the intervention, including Commissioners reports (current and former)
• held interviews with members and officers (past and present), the local MP, the Local Government Association (LGA) including mentors, former and current commissioners.
• met with civil servants engaged with the Council
• held a focus group of middle managers and met the lead officers for the staff network groups
• observed meetings of a selection of internal improvement boards
• undertook a half day regeneration tour
• visited the Britwell Hub and Community centre, which hosts a Council Service Point, and met an older people’s group
• reviewed a sample of cabinet/council reports, other council documents and viewed meeting recordings
• invited submissions to the review from stakeholders and residents from across Slough

5. The Review received excellent support from Sam Maybee, MHCLG, who in addition to his most efficient coordination, liaison and research role provided much valued insight and analysis on interventions. Thanks are also due to the Commissioners in Slough who gave generously of their time and expertise, which was so essential to our understanding of the progress of the intervention. Likewise, the Review team were most appreciative of Slough Council Members and Officers and all who came forward to contribute their perspective, whether in current or former roles. The commitment of so many to the success of Slough was very evident and their willingness to engage, their frankness and desire to support the Review was valued.

Current position

6. A review of various reports from Commissioners since the start of the DfE intervention in 2014, and throughout the MHCLG Intervention from 2021, provides an ongoing narrative about failings in Slough Borough Council and how this was impacting on services for young people and the residents and businesses of the borough. There are a number of recurring themes in these reports which point to the nature of failings and the range of causes which have impacted progress with improvement. There is no single over-riding cause for failure but rather a combination of weaknesses which were evident and impacted at different stages over the past decade.

7. Since the commencement of intervention much has been done by the council and by Commissioners to address failings. There is now a much clearer acknowledgement amongst members and officers about the issues that need to be addressed. Therefore, for the purposes of this Review, the focus is not specifically on the historic causes of failure, but on where the council is now and identifying those matters which continue to pose risks to progress.

Children’s services

Historically the council had failed to tackle weaknesses in children’s services over an extensive period. This pointed to a council with a weak focus on its children and young people and a lack of urgency, will and passion to improve matters. Over the period of intervention, the council has taken more active ownership of the need to improve services for children and young people. Although there is more work to do, the council does appear to have a renewed commitment which needs to be fully embedded to demonstrate an improved trajectory for children’s services including SEND. The council’s recent decisions to allocate additional resources to the recovery of Children’s Services including SEND is a tangible measure of that commitment, which needs to be backed by wider corporate ownership of improvement by the senior leadership of the council.

Good governance and political leadership

A priority issue for the intervention has been the breakdown of adherence to good governance practice, leading to poor and ill-conceived decision-making, weak financial discipline, breaches of contractual and procurement compliance, and a lack of scrutiny and challenge. Progress has been made across the organisation in these areas and continued focus on good governance by the senior leaders will be important in embedding good practice.

Political leadership has had periods of relative strength and weakness but has not always focused on the strategic and setting clear priorities. In Slough, there is a strong focus on community leaders which to some extent cuts across the normal political groupings. This means that the inherent understanding of political vision and priorities present in the party political system is not so evident, and cannot be relied upon by officers to assist them to support the leadership of the administration. In this context, the administration (particularly one in no overall control) needs to provide a strong vision and clarity on its priorities and build its competency in leadership over its tenure, if over-reliance on, and lack of challenge of, officers is to be avoided. This has not always been the case in Slough and member development and mentoring opportunities will be needed going forward.

Senior officer leadership

An ill-conceived council-wide reorganisation in 2020 to 2021 led to the loss of many experienced staff and the loss of much capacity, capability and resilience across the organisation. Since then, Slough has experienced high levels of turnover of senior staff and widespread use of interim staff at all levels. This has resulted in weak officer leadership and high turnover, which has impacted the ability to tackle improvement at pace and led to anxiety and poor morale across the organisation. This situation is only now beginning to recover following the period of the Managing Director Commissioner model which has brought some improved stability of senior leaders; although the lack of confidence, sense of low self-worth and helplessness is still prevalent amongst some members and staff. The importance of a stable Senior Leadership Team which is visible, corporate and exercising grip and control cannot be underestimated.

Financial sustainability

Tackling the issues of failure in financial management and compliance, and ill-conceived investment decisions, has been a key focus of commissioners and the council. In particular, progress has been made to address:

• the failure to close accounts since 2018/19 and lack of proper record keeping
• the failure to adhere to high standards of accounting practice and statutory requirements
• the failure to adhere to due diligence and good governance in decision making about investment, and ensuring correct financial treatment especially on Minimum Revenue Provision (MRP)
• a lack of financial discipline and compliance across the council
• the lack of a credible and sustainable Medium Term Financial Strategy (MTFS)

Commissioners and interim financial staff sourced to support recovery have needed to spend considerable time on identifying the scale of problems, with new issues continually emerging. However, the efforts to build a competent and well led finance function are now beginning to bear fruit, with improvements in financial governance, the establishment of the MTFS and good capacity and capability within the finance team to drive its implementation.

Long-term under-investment in the infrastructure and systems needed to support the activities of a complex organisation has resulted in an absence of good data for decision making, a proliferation of manual systems and use of spreadsheets, and a lack of digitally enabled services. This has consequences for the pace of decision-making and the council’s ability to drive change and improvement. For example, a lack of data and documentation on the council’s assets has been addressed and validated, but is still only held on a spreadsheet; similarly, a lack of invoicing systems for some services is leading to excessive manual processing. This needs to be addressed urgently through roll out of an infrastructure strategy which supports improved BAU systems, as well as the capability to support the council’s Transformation Plan.

8. It is important to understand that, whilst the failings of the council have adversely impacted on some services provided to residents over the past decade, in the relatively short time period of the review’s work a number of examples of good practice were seen and there will be others, including:

• the Education service, with most schools receiving positive outcomes in relation to Ofsted judgements. All nursery, primary and special schools are at least ‘good’, and all children’s centres are good with one graded outstanding. There are good levels of educational attainment in the town with over 65% of key stage 4 students achieving grade 4 or above in English and Maths GCSEs.
• Adult Social Care, which recently received a ‘Good‘ CQC Inspection judgment. Commissioning activity is well developed and features co-design of adult social care services in partnership with service users.
• the Regeneration Strategy ‘Slough is Now’, which is achieving success in delivering inward investment, partnerships and new residential developments including securing Berkeley Homes as a partner in the renewal of the Town Centre.
• a re-focused and improving Internal Audit function.
• community initiatives operating from the Britwell Hub (which is hosting a pilot of the Council’s Customer Access Point), and the Langley Community Safety Project. Both areas have secured Pride in Place funding of £20m each over the next 10 years.

The Review met staff from across the organisation in the course of its work and was impressed by their conscientiousness and commitment to proving good services for Slough residents. Many staff live in Slough and have a strong sense of pride in the place. They are an important asset both as ambassadors but also as a source of understanding the needs of different communities.

These are all significant achievements for Slough to be cherished and celebrated, and signal the potential for all services to aspire to. They can provide valuable models for staff of what can be achieved and refute the negative narrative that is so often more prevalent around the council. There is scope for the council to draw on the capability and skills evident in successful services - for example, the work of Adult Social Care on commissioning could inform the development of a council wide commissioning strategy.

Risks to progress

9. The MHCLG and DfE Commissioners’ recent reports provide strong insight and analysis on the issues faced, which draw on their extensive experience of achieving change and improvement in Slough. Taking account of this analysis, the range of causes of failure historically and the progress achieved during the period of intervention, the Review has identified 6 key ongoing risks concerning:

• intervention fatigue
• organisation culture and leadership
• delivery of the MTFS and Transformation Plan
• continuing improvement in Children’s Services and SEND
• political leadership
• longer term sustainability

These are discussed below and it is these risks which need to be mitigated in formulating the ongoing approach to intervention in Slough.

Intervention fatigue

Despite the progress made since the start of the MHCLG intervention over 4 years ago, there is a sense of general helplessness and fatigue within the council. Being in intervention for such an extended period has become the norm and an ongoing sense of failure prevails. This pervades more widely – the Review has heard concerns from the community in relation to the value for money of the Commissioners.

Within the council this has led to an overreliance on Commissioners to be decision-makers, to solve problems and to provide reassurance. Whilst there is awareness about the financial challenges the council faces, there is little shared understanding of what specifically needs to improve and be evidenced in order to end intervention. The lack of confidence and focus is hindering the pace of improvement, and normalising a sense of helplessness and lack of ownership by the council.

The task of improvement can seem so overwhelming that no progress is made. It is hard to maintain focus and pick up momentum when improvement is framed in the mechanics of extensive action plans, various improvement boards and monitoring arrangements. There is a risk of the improvement and transformation activity overriding council ownership and timely decision making via the role of good and effect line management structures. Clarity of messages around action, and working on priorities in manageable chunks is key to progress. The MHCLG Commissioners have also identified this issue and are currently reviewing the improvement governance structures.

Organisational culture and leadership

Despite the work undertaken by the council and commissioners to develop a new organisational culture, there is still more to do:

• to embed a more corporate and joined up approach
• to embed a compliance culture and good financial discipline which can be relied on
• to establish a ‘can do’ and learning culture which empowers staff to achieve high standards
• to use performance management to develop organisational capacity and capability, building on the new Workforce Strategy

Key to this is the establishment of a stable and competent Senior Leadership Team which is visible, and perceived to have shared ownership of and commitment to the recovery journey.

Following a short period of relative stability in senior officer leadership under the Managing Director Commissioner model, the council is now undergoing a turnover of senior roles. The historic experience of turnover in senior officer roles will cause anxiety in the organisation, and the establishment of a new leadership team will be a priority in maintaining confidence and momentum. Historically recruitment prospects for the right calibre of candidate have not always been good, which creates more uncertainty and risk.

Delivery of the Medium-term financial strategy (MTFS) and Transformation Plan

The council has an agreed MTFS and a Transformation Plan which are at the heart of the improvement that needs to be delivered, including savings in 2026/27 and beyond. Whilst there is confidence in delivery of the MTFS in 2026/27, this is an area of significant risk for future years. There is much work to be further developed, and progress is not yet at a point where there can be full confidence on delivery. Many of the business plans are in outline and require considerable further work. The council is proposing to use consultants to coordinate delivery of the Transformation Plan. This is a critical appointment which the council needs to manage well. The council has overprogrammed the Transformation Plan, which does help to mitigate risk to some extent.

Continued under investment in the IT infrastructure to support BAU efficiencies in service delivery, data management, as well as the digitisation called for by the Transformation Plan, is a risk which has the ability to undermine delivery of the MTFS and service improvement. This requires strong oversight by the Corporate Leadership Team to ensure an Infrastructure Strategy is in place for IT investment with appropriate prioritisation and that delivery is on track.

Continued improvement in Children’s Services and Special Educational Needs and Disabilities (SEND)

Children’s Services and SEND continue to face many challenges and cannot yet be said to be on a stable trajectory. Having driven improvement in the past, the role of Slough Children First (SCF) in adding value to the improvement journey is currently uncertain. With recent staffing changes, SCF is currently in the exceptional position of having only one board member, and the option of returning services to the council is being explored. This could be beneficial in securing council’s ownership and allowing a more streamlined improvement governance and decision-making framework to be put in place. It is important to consider whether the current SCF contract expiry date of November 2027 remains a sensible target for convergence of Children’s Services back to the council, or whether a more ambitious target should be pursued, to reduce uncertainty within the council. Tangible progress on improvement in Children’s Services and SEND over the coming 9 month period will be a critical milestone. Recent council decisions to invest in Children’s Services including SEND need to be backed by heightened corporate ownership of improvement and accountability by the corporate leadership team and members.

Political leadership

All out elections will be held in May 2027, with many senior and long-serving politicians standing down. There is a general view that the council may continue in no overall control, with many new councillors expected. This will be a point of significant risk for the council where momentum and focus may falter for a period. Equally it can also be a point of opportunity to reinforce strong political leadership. A programme of induction and ongoing support for the new administration will need to be an essential feature of the ongoing intervention. Past experience points to variable uptake of the LGA’s member development offer, which could support this period of change. Therefore, the development of a more bespoke model of collaboration between the peer support offer and government intervention arrangements would be helpful.

Sustainability

There is a view that the size of the council is a barrier to sustainability. Whilst a larger council would more easily provide capacity and resilience, the review team did not take the view that this was an overwhelming risk to recovery. Indeed, many of the risks referred to above are not mitigated by size alone.

Slough is a place with an economy of around £9 billion with significant prospects for growth. It has excellent transport connectivity including National Rail, the Elizabeth Line and a local bus network, and is sited on the M4 corridor. It is the home of the largest trading estate in Europe, with global companies and businesses which generate significant economic prosperity for the UK notably in AI and data management. It will form a part of Heathrow’s forthcoming expansion. Slough has the ability and the appetite to provide substantial numbers of new homes, including on grey belt, to contribute to the demand for increased house building in London and the South East.

This points to the strong likelihood that Slough will experience a significant increase in population over the next decade and beyond, with the potential for an increased council tax base and business rates growth, which will contribute to the council’s sustainability.

The potential to change the narrative about Slough through a successful regeneration vision is palpable and will have benefits in terms of organisational pride and confidence and the ability to attract and retain high calibre senior staff. Together with the progress made to date, the relative strength and success of some services and the experience of other small councils points to the potential to improve its sustainability and become a best value council irrespective of size.

Reflections on HMG approach to intervention

Early triggers

10. There were 2 alarm bells triggering concerns for the functioning of Slough Borough Council, the first in 2014 in the wake of the adverse Ofsted Judgement of Children’s Services, and the second with the failure to close the 2018/19 accounts and subsequent impact on future years accounts. At that time, DfE intervention did not necessarily trigger a check on whether these events had a read across to wider council weaknesses. There is now more recognition that such ongoing failings in the delivery of Children’s Services may well signal wider issues and are worthy of investigation. Similarly, failures identified via external audit processes are now recognised as opportunities to explore the situation of councils.

11. Had these events resulted in closer examination of the council’s governance and sustainability at that time, it may have triggered a different level of intervention by MHCLG which may have averted some aspects of the failure which later transpired. Therefore, it would be beneficial for MHCLG to ensure the ongoing identification of risks and triggers has a prominent place in its local government stewardship role. The Review notes ongoing progress on this – for instance through strengthened powers of intervention around MRP and capital practices – which, had they been in place at the time, may have enhanced understanding of Slough’s risk at this point. Going forward, consideration could also be given to enhancing the role that the Annual Governance Statement could play in providing assurance about standards of governance and adherence to good standards of financial practice. Placing a requirement for due diligence to be undertaken, with personal and public accountability and responsibility for sign-off by auditors and senior council officers, would trigger the exercise of stronger oversight of governance standards.

Deploying a Commissioner team

12. In the event, MHCLG intervention was triggered at a point of crisis with the then interim 151 officer issuing a section 114 notice. Given the need for immediate action, there was no time for a Best Value Inspection to identify the scale of challenge and the intervention was framed around the financial imperatives. At this stage more note might have been taken of some of the wider concerns raised in Jim Taylor’s External Assurance Review. As a consequence, the initial Commissioner team were focused on:

• discovery of the scale of the financial problems
• building a plan for financial recovery
• tackling the failings in financial systems and the issue of the 2018 /2019 accounts
• developing a MTFS and putting in place an asset disposal strategy to reduce debt
• recruiting a senior leadership team to address the wider issues of governance, performance and culture which were becoming evident

13. It was rapidly recognised that the Commissioner team did not have sufficient capacity to address all of the wider issues, including more proactive engagement with the DfE intervention. With hindsight, this could have triggered consideration of a larger intervention team who could become fully immersed in Slough. This would have allowed more intensive Commissioner activity initially, with a view to stepping down in a phased withdrawal as the council’s own capacity and capability strengthened.

In the event the team was quickly supplemented, but those appointed had other employment and intervention responsibilities which restricted their time to focus on Slough. This is in no way a criticism of the work and dedication of the Commissioners concerned, who despite the constraints made significant progress in addressing concerns. Indeed, the work of Commissioners has been essential to getting the key basic prerequisites of a best value council in place. Rather, it is a reflection of the onerous nature of the task given to them, and the need in appointing Commissioners to give greater thought to the demands of the particular role and how it will be exercised in any individual intervention. It is understandable that MHCLG will wish to deploy their most experienced Commissioners to the more testing situations, but greater thought might be given to the competing demands from substantive employment and other interventions.

14. Of paramount importance in assembling a Commissioner team is ensuring the appropriate range of skills are included, but it is equally important that individuals are able to work together as a team with a strong shared ethos. The ability of the Commissioner team to provide role models for both individual and team behaviour is a key tool of intervention. There should be greater opportunity for potential candidates to explore this prior to finalising the team membership. Composition of the team may also need to be kept under review as the intervention moves through different phases.

The Managing Director Commissioner role is an important tool in providing senior officer leadership to a council particularly in the early stages of an intervention. Its execution needs to be alive to the inherent tensions between Executive Corporate Leadership and the oversight role as a commissioner.

15. Now that MHCLG has expanded its commissioner/ inspector pool they are better placed to address the range of skills and experience they need to draw on in forming the commissioner team. Arrangements for ongoing and regular engagement with the pool as well as development and ‘learning from interventions’ opportunities will assist MHCLG’s line of sight, and the ability for new commissioners to be ready to take up the role.

Intervention Rhythm and Oversight

Building a path through intervention

16. Every intervention has its unique features and what may work in one place may not be effective elsewhere. The combination of variables and complexities within each council makes it essential that the detail of intervention is bespoke to each council. The strength of MHCLG’s approach is that the appointed Commissioner team are given the freedom to determine the detail of the intervention most suited to the council. During the initial weeks of any intervention the Commissioner team will be discovering the depth of issues to be addressed, the strengths and weaknesses within the council, and the best way to support and empower members and officers to own and tackle the challenges. There are numerous variations on how Commissioners can fulfil their role which will change over the period of an intervention. It is important at the outset to establish an ‘intervention rhythm’ which government, the Commissioner team and the council can understand and which contains milestones and an exit strategy. In Slough the lack of rhythm and repeated changes to intervention have slowed progress and made it difficult to build a self-sustaining improvement trajectory. It is important to build momentum and a sense of achievement in order to increase pace and confidence across the organisation.

17. For interventions which are likely to be lengthy, it is particularly important not to create over dependence and helplessness and to avoid exhaustion through over reliance on complex governance architecture. The task of improvement can seem overwhelming at the outset and breaking tasks down and setting milestones can generate a sense of achievement and confidence. In Slough this has been a significant issue – the council have struggled to grasp what is expected in order to improve. In the rarer instances of intervention, where directions remove decision making powers from the council and place them in the hands of Commissioners, the intervention needs to set as its highest purpose respect for democratic legitimacy and the speedy return of powers to local elected representatives. This should be explicit in the intervention plan, and may have assisted the Slough intervention in building the capability and confidence of the council from the outset.

18. Intervention rhythm has many shared characteristics with dealing with civil emergencies. As MHCLG undertakes the process of updating its Best Value Guidance, consideration should be given to using the civil contingency architecture of mitigation, preparedness, response and recovery phases to describe and plan the stages of intervention activity through to recovery and return to ‘normality’. This could provide a framework for shaping the phases of intervention, setting milestones and providing clarity to all on the exit strategy; the lack of this structure in Slough contributed to the council’s inconsistent progress.

A potential framework could be set out as follows using the phases as set out in the table below:

	Response	Recovery	Support
Characteristics at start of stage	Council is failing to deliver key outcomes Regulator judgements at lowest level Financial position critical	Council is showing positive trajectory to deliver key outcomes Positive signs from regulators Financial position with clear recovery plan	Council has exited formal intervention but still facing key risks which need external oversight. Positive delivery of key outcomes but some risks re sustainability Financial position stable but with heightened, known risks.
Intervention Team	Response team focused on immediate improvements in performance and financial stability Discovery of depth and nature of issues to enable development of exit strategy	Recovery team focused on empowering council to exit formal intervention	External assurance board to act as “critical friends” to provide confidence of sustainable progress
Expected duration (indicative)	6 to 9 months	9 months to 2 years	2 to 4 years

The key to this approach is to view intervention as a system rather than an event. Different councils might enter the system at different points, dependent upon their circumstances. The suggested framework recognises different stage of intervention dependent upon the circumstances of the individual council. Critically, the phase of intervention adopted is based on a number of set out and evidenced criteria. The important aspect of this is the clarity the framework provides, which is transparent and could be managed as a system by MHCLG.

Councils and their public service partners are very familiar with operating within the civil contingency architecture. This therefore has the potential to provide greater understanding for Councils and Commissioners as well as being a useful tool to explain arrangements to the public and stakeholders in the affected council area.

Intervention reporting

19. The regular reports of the Commissioner team to the Minister provide an important contemporaneous account and analysis of progress and what still needs to be tackled. They are also an important tool in providing challenge as well as public recognition of progress for the council and its staff. Their value is undermined when there are long delays between Commissioners writing reports and their publication. When progress in a council is moving at pace the publication of out-of-date information is demoralising and counterproductive to achieving a good intervention rhythm. Every effort should be made to enable prompt publication, and at the very least prompt sharing of key messages with the council’s senior members and officers.

20. In the main, reports to the Minister have not explored in much detail the granularity of what the Commissioners are needing to do on the ground. There are informal discussions between Commissioners, chiefs of staff and MHCLG officials about the progress of work, prospects of success and what more might be required. However, MHCLG officials might usefully consider building into each intervention a more formal periodic review with commissioners into the oversight arrangements. This would allow the exploration of different approaches to the intervention; adjustments to directions; options for the modus operandi of commissioners, relevance of skills mix; and expansion, contraction, phasing out and exiting strategies. It would improve MHCLG’s line of sight on the demands of the intervention and a more granular understanding of what works and enable real time sharing of lessons learned between interventions. The process could also assist Commissioners to challenge themselves and take stock about the approach they are taking and when to adjust it. In the case of Slough, this might have resulted in a better understanding of the need for and demands on a Managing Director Commissioner role at an earlier stage in the intervention, and a discussion on approaches to tackling the needs of political leadership.

One Commissioner team

21. In the early stages of the Slough intervention, there was little capacity for regular engagement between DfE and MHCLG Commissioners. More recently both sets of Commissioners have improved working relationships and information sharing. Given that so many of the organisational and cultural issues which impact on Children’s Services are also being addressed within the council there is an opportunity to move beyond information sharing to closer partnership working, to troubleshoot blockages and co-develop action plans. Greater collaboration would allow the contribution that the whole council needs to bring to the recovery of Children’s Services to be given more prominence, along with greater priority to the council’s corporate parenting role. This would also mitigate the risk of failings in Children’s Services not being owned by the whole council, in particular, where those services are outsourced. Flexibility on the nature of the partnership between DfE and MHCLG appointees would be helpful with the option to determine a bespoke approach for each intervention. This could range from agreements on individual shared work strands to commissioners forming a single Council Commissioner Team. However, the requirement to consider and agree an approach in each case should be a prerequisite.

22. In the case of the current position in Slough, moving to a single commissioner team would bring a stronger focus on the role and responsibility of the senior leadership team to act corporately, exercise grip and control and timely decision-making in improving all of the council’s services including Children’s Services. It would give the DfE Commissioners greater insight and influence on the council’s decision making and its improvement journey and contribute to their ability to judge the impact and prospects for Children’s services.

Options for support for the Council

23. The current MHCLG Directions expire in November 2026 and it is urgent to determine what the next stages of recovery in Slough might be. Given the lengthy period under Directions, it is important that the next phase enables an exit from intervention as soon as possible. The first step requires an articulation of the criteria for exiting intervention so that the Directions reflect those features.

24. It is suggested that the exit criteria should be based on the following judgements:

• that the council is sufficiently stable and well lead at both member and officer level to continue the improvement journey alone and to respond to the everyday challenges all councils face without the input of Commissioners
• that the delivery of the MTFS is on track, that competent leadership of the finance function is secure, and financial discipline and compliance are sufficiently embedded
• that the Transformation programme is making progress and continuous improvement is becoming embedded and IT infrastructure is improving
• that the DfE Commissioner and Adviser are confident that recovery in Children’s Services and SEND are on track
• that cultural change is bearing fruit, that the council is more corporate with strong visible senior officer leadership, that the organisation has a learning culture, is more confident, decision-making is more agile, and the council has energy and a ‘can do’ approach
• that a focus on residents and young people permeates service planning and delivery
• that there is clear strategic direction and priorities and a balance between focus on people and focus on place and that the opportunities for economic growth are being seized

Directions

25. Given the history and trajectory of intervention in Slough, it is the opinion of the Review that it will be necessary to extend the MHCLG Directions beyond November 2026. However, the new Directions need to strongly signal a point of change. Clearly there are a number of options on a continuum from a more hands-on interventionist approach, through to a more limited light touch commissioner role. The review considers that best way forward for Slough is for the new Directions from November 2026 to focus on arrangements which:

• support the establishment of a new and stable political administration after the May 2027 local elections with good member-officer working on BAU and development of vision and strategy
• enable the establishment of a stable senior officer leadership team which provides visible corporate leadership
• empower the council to act without proactive intervention from commissioners in order to reduce dependency and build confidence
• enable the MHCLG Commissioners to step back whilst maintaining oversight of progress, providing support in tackling challenges, keeping the option to intervene as last resort and enabling oversight of progress via an exit strategy with milestones
• promote a strong collaboration between MHCLG and DfE Commissioners and other regulators

26. It is recognised that whilst there are risks to this approach, its prospects for success outweigh the risks of stagnation if the current or a more intense intervention model was pursued at this stage. The review considers that the time for a more intensive approach has passed and that given the progress made to date and the potential for a new narrative, the priority should be to boost council ownership of the next phase of recovery

Senior leadership team

27. The Council is facing the loss of many of its senior leadership team after a period of relative stability. There is much concern that prospects may not be good for the recruitment of experienced and competent staff whether permanent or interim.

28. In order to move the organisation in the direction of the exit criteria, it is suggested that the next phase of intervention is not based on the Managing Director Commissioner model. However, given the challenges of recruitment and the opportunity of a number of vacancies in the Corporate Leadership Team (CLT), consideration could be given to securing a bespoke fixed-term senior team who commit to a tenure of around 18 months to join the remaining executive directors. The prospect of attracting candidates to several vacancies to what might seem high risk roles impacting personal reputation, might be improved by taking the team approach, and should be tested out with the interim market. Central to a successful recruitment would be the establishment of a changed narrative about the economic potential and ambitions of Slough. If a high calibre team is recruited it is likely they would need reassurance and agreement on the role of Commissioners. This may allow the MHCLG Commissioner team to adjust their role and step down from involvement in managerial oversight to the empowering and support roles referred to in paragraph 25 above. The new senior leadership team would take responsibility and ownership for the delivery of the MTFS, the Transformation Programme and the Improvement and Recovery Plan, as well as the improvement of Children’s Services and SEND.

Political administration

29. The new Directions should also consider the best approach to supporting the establishment of the new political administration in May 2027, including pre-selection training for those interested in standing for election as councillors, the on-boarding and induction of councillors on governance arrangements, statutory and regulatory requirements, the building of competency and the adoption of the administration’s strategies and priorities. Given the expectation of many new councillors post election, this provides an ideal opportunity to reset political leadership and culture and member-officer working relationships.

30. The Commissioner team should establish a shared plan with the LGA member development offer and establish ongoing collaborative arrangements between commissioners, the LGA and the senior leadership team to ensure the programme stays on track and is flexible to the challenges presenting. The Review recommends that this would be best achieved by the appointment of a political advisor as part of the Commissioner team whose remit would be:

• supporting the establishment of the new administration to articulate and deliver its vision, priorities and decision-making processes
• supporting arrangements for joint working and mutual understanding between the political leadership and the corporate leadership team on strategic vision and decision making
• supporting the establishment of effective cabinet member and officer working arrangements to facilitate delivery
• supporting the development of member skills in challenge and scrutiny
• collaboration with any mentors /coaches and securing a shared understanding and approach to member development
• providing the Commissioner team with a political perspective on the intervention and member needs

The MHCLG Commissioner team

31. In the period to renewal of the Directions, the Commissioner team would continue its work with a focus on assurance of delivery of the MTFS and the Transformation Plan, pursuing time critical decisions concerning Slough Children’s First, investment in IT infrastructure and options for pre-election training of candidates. In addition, the Commissioner team would oversee the appointment of the bespoke fixed term senior leadership team roles.

Under the new directions from November 2026, the Commissioner team would reset its arrangements, reviewing the skills mix needed and ways of working and would shift its focus to:

• putting in place the new role of political adviser
• putting in place team arrangements to include the DfE commissioners/ advisors
• onboarding the new senior leadership team, and later in the intervention, the subsequent transition to permanent appointments following the fixed term period
• supporting the council to seize the opportunities of growth in order to achieve sustainability
• oversight and reassurance that the delivery of the MTFS, Transformation Plan and improvements in Children’s Services and SEND continue on track
• putting in place an Exit Strategy and monitoring progress

Children’s Services and SEND

32. In setting the new Directions, the leadership of Council, both members and officers, need to take heightened ownership of improvement in Children’s Services and SEND. It needs to ensure adequacy of resourcing, appropriate challenge and scrutiny of delivery, proactive corporate parenting activity and the support and contribution of other council services for the wellbeing of children. Importantly the senior leadership of the council should ensure it hears the voice of the children of Slough.

33. The Council needs urgently to review the working of Slough Children First and its role in recovery and improvement. The Review found that those involved in the company and with experience of this model elsewhere were questioning the extent to which it was now the most effective vehicle for improvement in Slough. A more stream-lined governance structure might improve focus and reduce duplication of oversight activity. Bringing services back into the council might improve opportunities for sharing back-office costs, strengthen council ownership and streamline decision-making. The release of time and costs could allow resources to be directed to improve delivery. Overall, the Review found the arguments in favour of convergence compelling. Given the work and commitment required, an urgent review and decision on target timelines for convergence is needed by the council and DfE.

34. The Review considers that the strengthening of council ownership of improvement for its children and young people is similarly important for SEND services. Alternative Delivery Models are being considered for Slough given continued challenges in SEND provision. The Review advises great caution in opting for any approach that reduces council ownership of the improvement journey at this stage, and consider that the council’s commitment of additional investment, a renewed focus on children referred to in this report and the work of the new Interim Director of Children’s Service should be given the opportunity bear fruit. It is not obvious that the prospect of the distraction of delivering a significantly different alternative model, which would need very careful consideration if further fragmentation of children’s provision is to be avoided, would add value at this stage. Indeed it may impair strong council ownership, which is the long-term route to confidence in services for children and young people. However, exploration of new options for strengthening capacity for Slough, such as additional sharing of resource or partnering models with neighbouring councils, could be valuable in further building the council’s ability to drive improvement in this area.

35. The Review asks for careful consideration of the timing of the next full OFSTED inspection so that the arrangements now in place can have the opportunity to bear fruit and the inspection process be able to add real value to recovery.

Financial options

36. Financial options to support sustainability are dealt with at paragraph 37 below.

Slough’s pathway to growth and sustainability

37. Slough has a population of around 167,000 people and has the second youngest population in the country, with 25% of residents aged 15 years and under. It is also one of the most ethnically diverse places in England with 44% of residents born outside the UK. It has pockets of severe deprivation and low healthy life expectancy.

38. Slough is well located with excellent transport links via road, buses, the Elizabeth Line and National Rail to Central London, Heathrow and the West and with the proposed Western Rail Link to Heathrow enhancing its global gateway. It is the home of over 5.400 businesses providing 92,000 jobs and has the biggest concentration of global company headquarters in the UK outside of London. It ranks as the most productive city in the UK and its economy is estimated at £9 Billion.^{[footnote 1]} It is home to the Slough Trading Estate (Europe’s largest) providing 15,000 jobs in nearly 400 businesses and supporting a further 80,000 jobs in data services, pharmaceuticals, consumer goods, logistics, technology development and advanced manufacturing. It is recognised as a key satellite town of London.

39. ‘Slough is Now’ is the council’s vision for regeneration from 2026 to 2040, which sets out ‘… how the town will build on its exceptional location, diverse talent and legacy of innovation to create a greener, fairer and more inclusive future…’. The Council has immediate plans for up to 10,000 new homes in the town and has formed a partnership with Berkeley Homes to deliver new homes and redesign and re-invigorate the Town Centre. Development would be on sites already in ownership of either Berkeley Homes, Homes England or public service bodies and given the existing transport connectivity and infrastructure, delivery of the first phase of new homes is expected over the next 3-5 years. There is potential for further new homes outside the town centre which over time could increase the residential stock by up to a further 30,000 units.

40. Within the council’s own housing estates, studies have been undertaken to renew the stock and increase the density and mix of dwellings to tackle overcrowding and provide multi-generational homes with houses of 3 and 4 bedrooms. Studies have shown that density could be increased from the current range of 33 to 45 homes per hectare to 72 homes per hectare. In parallel the council has plans to ensure benefits for local residents through its economic development and skills activity to create pathways into employment and to attract higher education institutions to Slough.

41. Overall, Slough has good potential to grow its economy and deliver economic prosperity. The prospect of providing tens of thousands of new homes in a well-connected location, and in a vibrant economic and job market over 5 - 15 years will result in an increase in both the population and the council tax base. There is potential for this to booster the council’s financial sustainability considerably. Although the timeline to achieve all of this has uncertainties, given the national need to deliver new homes, it seems very likely that this could become a reality. Although, the council’s bid to be included in the MHCLG New Towns Programme was not successful, the council remains committed to its growth and regeneration plans. Slough’s ability to provide new and affordable homes with good transport connectivity can contribute to meeting the housing needs of London, but the council currently has no access to housing finance streams for London. Consideration should also be given to strategically linking the need for continued asset disposal with ambitions for future housing delivery. The benefits of delivery of new housing, whilst assisting the council to achieve sustainability through an enhanced revenue base, could prove an attractive combination worthy of consideration.

42. Heathrow’s third runway expansion will be partially located in Slough and there are proposals for a rail link from Slough to Terminal 5. These developments will place critical requirements on Slough, including planning consent for the realignment of the M25, compulsory purchase of properties, hosting of construction infrastructure sites and transport movements, and construction workforce housing. The council will need to put in place a bespoke team and arrangements to respond to these demands, but currently directly receives little of the benefit of an expanded Heathrow. The possibility of the council receiving a share of business rate growth could be usefully explored. In addition, the possibility of responding to a spike in need for construction worker housing via a bespoke new build offer which could revert to rented social housing use at the end of the project should be considered. This would mitigate further pressures on existing housing stock for local people and provide a long-term benefit. The concept of a partnership Heathrow Economic Activity Zone would be beneficial as a route for Slough to engage and benefit and contribute proactively.

43. In summary, government support for the council to deliver on its regeneration potential would contribute significantly to the council’s long term sustainability and should be explored in the following ways:

• support for funding of land assembly, land decontamination and clearance, provision of new housing
• support for strengthened partnership approaches with Homes England and landowners
• support for a partnership with the Greater London Authority for funding to contribute to London’s housing needs
• support for delivery of council responsibilities on Heathrow expansion and for access to benefits from the expansion of Heathrow including business rates share

Slough’s unusual geography and focus into London has historically led to it being overlooked, with the town not neatly fitting into wider regional geographies. In recognition of this, MHCLG should consider the option of convening a bespoke partnership to focus on ‘Growth in Slough’ to support the council with conversations to promote and accelerate Slough’s growth potential.

Financial options

44. A number of financial options for supporting the council and accelerating the achievement of financial sustainability have been identified and are commented on below, building on options initially identified by MHCLG Commissioners. These could helpfully be explored by the government and council, which requires the greatest possible flexibility to manage the financial challenge it faces.

Debt alleviation

• As outlined in the Commissioners’ reports, the current annual cost of servicing Exceptional Financial Support-derived debt is in the region of £25 million. This is a draw on the general revenue fund which is very significant and is a much higher percentage than other authorities are bearing. One of the ideas previously identified by Commissioners is to diverge from national guidance and increase the assumed asset life to 25 years – this would reduce the annual MRP draw on the general fund. This is an approach worthy of further exploration, which does not significantly compromise the general principles of local authority finance, and should reduce annual debt servicing costs by around £5 million per annum which could then be factored into the MTFS.

• The prospect of a wider debt holiday/write off has been suggested as a way forward for Slough. Whilst there is some attraction to this option as it is a neat way of reducing the revenue burden, it would set a very challenging precedent. It also absolves Slough of their responsibility to effect proper financial management. The Review therefore does not recommend further exploration of this option.

Council Tax

• Council Tax rates are a key decision for any authority, and a potentially beneficial source of additional revenue. Slough’s current council tax levels sit below those assumed in the Fair Funding Review 2.0., suggesting some scope for rates to be further increased. Allowing Slough an exception to raise council tax to the assumed national amount set out in the Fair Funding Review 2.0 would enable the council to add 2% to their council tax level, adding funding to their base financial position. This is a possible approach to address some of the financial pressures facing the council, which it should have the option to use as part of its MTFS.

Tax Increment Financing Model

• Heathrow Airport Ltd will lead the development of the airport expansion and significant additional revenue and taxation will be raised from this project for the host local authorities. This creates the opportunity to look at a variety of options around Tax Increment Financing (TIF) to help secure additional resources for the council. Whilst this will require detailed examination it should be something which is actively considered during the current MTFS period as it has the potential to create legitimate additional resources to support the growth of the borough.

• The advantage of looking to TIF models is that it can provide additional resource, without compromising the overall legitimacy of the local government finance system. This might be considered in conjunction with any partnership focussed on ‘Growth in Slough’.

Local government reorganisation

45. As noted at paragraph 9, comment is often made that Slough Borough Council is too small to achieve financial sustainability, and that a merger with other neighbouring councils may be the best future option. Pursuing an option for reorganisation would take time to come to fruition and would not provide a short-term resolution of the council’s financial viability. The council is not currently well placed to devote capacity to the significant work programme that would be required and this could distract the council from the work needed to deliver on its current recovery programme.

46. Neighbouring councils are also in some financial distress, which could impact on delivery of a viable and sustainable configuration of councils. There has been a historic reluctance for neighbouring councils and in the past they have not shown any appetite to partner in any way with Slough to support the council’s recovery. In addition, Slough has unique features in terms of its urban nature, its connectivity and its economy which set it apart to some extent from its unitary neighbours, adding to the complexity of reorganisation. Slough makes an outsize contribution to the national economy, and has potential to address housing needs for those beyond its boundaries, giving it a unique role in the area. Therefore the option of reorganisation does not seem to provide an immediate, or even short-term solution, and therefore does not mitigate the need for Slough Council and any directions to maintain focus in its recovery.

Annex A: Terms of Reference

Background

1. In December 2021, the then Secretary of State for Levelling Up decided, following evidence of significant Best Value failure, to intervene in Slough Borough Council (SBC), through the application of Directions and appointment of Commissioners. These Directions were subsequently extended for a further two years in November 2024, and the intervention was escalated to a Managing Director Commissioner model. Commissioners remain in place at the Council. The depth of failure in SBC at the time of intervention was unprecedented, but progress in recovery at the Council has been slower than anticipated over the lifetime of the intervention.

2. In October 2014, following an ‘Inadequate’ children’s social care (CSC) Ofsted judgement, the Department for Education issued its first Statutory Direction (SD) to Slough and appointed a Children’s Commissioner. In 2023, due to concerns about Slough’s lack of progress following their 2021 Local Area Special Educational Needs (SEND) inspection, the department expanded the remit of the Children’s Commissioner to also cover SEND improvement and issued a SEND SD.

3. In July 2025, SBC was reinspected under the new Area SEND inspection framework, receiving a ‘widespread/systemic failings’ outcome. DfE are issuing a second SD, appointing Deborah Glassbrook as SEND Commissioner, in response to ongoing concerns that SBC is continuing to fail to perform to an adequate standard in meeting its statutory responsibilities.

4. In Children’s Social Care, the DfE is issuing its eighth statutory Direction, which formalises the move from Commissioner to Adviser support by appointing Jackie Wilson as CSC Adviser. This also brings within the scope of the Direction the Ofsted Area for Priority Action on keeping in touch with care leavers, identified in the Focused Visit published on 12 January 2026, to ensure statutory safeguarding duties are met.

5. Slough’s improvement journey in recent years has been inconsistent, and the Council continues to underperform. The Best Value Commissioners’ Seventh Report outlines concerns that the pace of progress at the Council has stalled. It is not in the best interests of Slough’s residents for the Council to continue at this pace of improvement. The Minister for Local Government and Homelessness has therefore established an external review into SBC, to assess the situation at the Council and identify potential routes forward.

Purpose and scope

6. This review is a novel approach, a bespoke response to the difficult circumstances at SBC. This review is advisory and will support Ministerial decision-making on the most appropriate next steps in relation to the interventions at SBC, both in MHCLG and DfE. It will also support MHCLG in its commitment to continuous improvement in its interventions at councils where best value failure is identified.

7. The review will therefore cover 3 areas:

1. Review of the progress in improvement at Slough:

• understanding the causes of Slough’s inconsistent recovery journey through the intervention period, including consideration of the impact of senior officer turnover, political instability and financial pressures on the council’s improvement trajectory
• identifying key risks to improvement within the council and intervention model, including achieving long term financial sustainability
• considering implications of Slough’s position for HMG’s wider interventions approach in local government

2. Options for immediate support to the Council:

• assessing tools to expedite SBC’s improvement journey, up to and beyond the scheduled end of Best Value directions in November 2026
• identifying improvements to joint working between MHCLG and DfE appointees to support a single HMG approach to Slough

3. Slough’s future:

• considering the long-term viability of SBC on its current footprint
• exploring long-term opportunities for the borough of Slough, ensuring its economic potential is realised to the benefit of its citizens. This should include identifying possible mechanisms to strengthen Slough’s partnerships with local stakeholders and HMG.

8. This review is not intended to establish whether SBC is currently experiencing best value failure and does not supersede any of the Directions currently in place at the council.

Products and timeline

9. At the conclusion of the review period, the review team will provide a written report outlining their findings, and detailing their recommendations to HMG for next steps.

10. The review will commence work on 5 March, with a report to be submitted by the end of April. The review team will remain available past this date for further consultations with Ministers and Departmental officials, as required.

Appointments

11. Dame Mary Ney has been appointed to lead this review. She will be supported by Will Godfrey.

12. To enable the timely completion of this review, the review team will be provided with MHCLG support staff.

13. The lead reviewer will be paid a fee of £1000/day for their work with supporting reviewer paid £900/day.

14. Given its focus on Slough’s progress during a period of statutory intervention, the costs of the review will be met by MHCLG. All costs associated with the Best Value Commissioners will continue to be met by the Council.

Wider engagement

15. The review will work closely with best value commissioners, the SEND commissioner and children’s services adviser appointed by DfE, and officers and members of SBC, to support the fulfilment of the scope outlined above.

16. The review will seek to engage past senior officers and members at SBC, previous HMG appointees to the interventions at the Council, and MHCLG and DfE support staff who have worked on the intervention, recognising the significant changes that have taken place in the senior leadership and intervention teams over the lifetime of the intervention. The review will additionally be open to submissions from external stakeholders in Slough and the wider surrounding area.

17. The review will additionally pay regard to the Department’s ongoing evaluation of its Stewardship function, and consider the implications of its findings in relation to its forthcoming review of Best Value guidance.

18. The role of the Best Value Commissioners, SEND Commissioner and Children’s Services Adviser at SBC is unchanged. Commissioners and the Adviser retain the powers and functions outlined in the Directions, and continue their work to support the Council’s improvement journey, independently of the Review.

Annex B: Review Team methodology

In the short period available the Review Team have aimed to build a rich picture of the situation at Slough through intensive engagement with members, officers and stakeholders of the Council, past and present.

The Review Team spent six days on site in Slough, supplemented by a significant number of virtual engagements. This enabled:

• engagement with all of the current Group leaders and the two deputy leaders of the Council; two former leaders of the Council; several backbench members; and the town’s Member of Parliament
• 1-1 discussions with all members of the Council Leadership Team as formed at the start of March 2026
• interviews with several former senior officers at Slough
• 1-1 discussions with all of the statutory appointees appointed to Slough Borough Council by MHCLG and DfE since 2021, and additionally interviews with four current and former MHCLG officials engaged in the intervention
• 10 1-1 interviews with senior officers at Slough sitting outside the CLT
• observation of several internal Council improvement boards
• engagement with the LGA, including the lead member peers for the Labour, Liberal Democrat and Conservative groups at Slough
• engagement with Grant Thornton, Slough’s auditors
• sessions with a group of managers from across the Council, and the chairs of the Council’s staff networks
• a visit to frontline service provision at the Britwell Hub, and a session to understand the Council’s approach to resident engagement with the Slough 50+ Forum
• a tour of the regeneration opportunities in the Borough, including at Heathrow Airport, the town centre, and the newly completed Horlicks Quarter development

This activity has been supplemented by an extensive desktop review of:

• reports made to Ministers by MHCLG Commissioners since 2021
• reports made to DfE Ministers by DfE statutory appointees, and related reports from Ofsted
• council documentation relating to transformation, customer service delivery, children’s services, regeneration and housing performance
• the Council’s Medium Term Financial Plan and strategies for financial management
• the Council’s Annual Governance Statements dating to 2015/16

In addition the Review team received several written submissions offering reflections on the council’s progress, including from partners of the council, a backbench councillor, several staff members, and 12 members of the public.

1. Centre for Cities - Cities-Outlook-2026.pdf ↩