Agenda item

Report of the Chief Executive

The Chief Executive introduced the report and explained that the REST (Regulatory and Environmental Services Transformation) project envisaged that a restructuring of the Environmental and Regulatory Services Division would be necessary to achieve its aims of providing more of a customer focus, drive efficiency and create a more commercial focus to drive economic development in the town. Many elements of the restructuring were within the authority delegated to the Chief Executive (as Head of Paid Service), but where director level posts were affected by any proposed changes, the authority to approve these rested with the Appointments and Remuneration Committee. The Chief Executive went on to report that the Committee had now endorsed the Chief Executive’s proposals for a new divisional triumvirate structure and Council approval was now requested to approve the structure proposals and agree their financing in view of the fact that the intended structure was initially more expensive than the current one. However he explained that the intention was that any additional cost in 2015/16 and 2016/17 would be funded from other budgets and in subsequent years the aim would be to recoup any additional costs by organisational changes elsewhere in the division as a Phase 2 restructure. The proposal was therefore for one off investment over two financial years with no overall increase in ongoing revenue costs; the objective being to create senior capacity to achieve better, more focussed and more efficient services in the longer term. The Chief Executive explained that the Budget Scrutiny Working Group had also considered the proposals and added value to the report which had changed considerably as a result. It was proposed that BSWG continue to be involved in a monitoring role.

The Chief Executive explained that the current structure of the division was not fit for purpose with the existing Director having nine direct reports. The REST programme was based on continued direct council provision of services commissioned against clear outcomes with customer focus, efficiency and effectiveness of service delivery and financial savings achieved through a systems thinking approach. The other key influence on the proposal was the urgent need to create senior level capacity to improve Cheltenham’s economic performance in the light of the Athey Consulting report. It emphasised the need for collaboration with Cheltenham Development Task Force, GFirst LEP, government agencies and local businesses.  He highlighted that Government policy continued to promote economic growth and reward local authorities who were successful in this objective through the business rates retention scheme and via New Homes Bonus. The Chief Executive emphasised that REST was crucial to shaping the council response to the need for economic growth in that it embraced the land use and infrastructure planning functions which were crucial to unlocking growth potential by facilitating the growth in existing business.

In terms of the financial implications of the proposals the Chief Executive reiterated that the cost arising from the structure would for a full year be approx. £157k. The full cost would not fall on this current financial year as it was unlikely the positions would be filled for six months. The actual cost in the next financial year would depend on how quickly the structure would be changed in Phase 2 which would be the responsibility of the newly appointed Managing Director. The Chief Executive emphasised that additional income generation could mitigate the need for reductions in staff numbers as part of Phase 2. In any case the financial implications of the restructure have been covered by one off funding to ensure that budgets were in balance for the 2017/18 financial year.

How the REST project fitted alongside 2020 Vision was then explained by the Chief Executive. He said that whilst REST focussed on the continued direct delivery of services by this council, 2020 Vision was focussed on progressively sharing back office activities. The Chief Executive believed that structural change was vital now in the REST division regardless of 2020 to create additional capacity to the service and progress the economic development objectives.

Finally the Chief Executive outlined the alternative options that had been considered. The “do nothing” approach was in his view not realistic as it was vital to build in additional capacity to address the current inadequacies in the service. He also explained that originally it was felt that the Director post should be out of scope for the restructure but this would have limited the emerging options for the new structure and would fail to address a capacity shortfall. The option of splitting the division into two, and having just 2 directors instead of 2 directors with the overarching MD post was considered but this would not support the REST Project vision of a more joined up, commercial and customer focussed service.

A question was raised with regard to staff morale. In response the Chief Executive highlighted that senior staff had been very involved in the co-creation of the triumvirate structure. The trade unions had also been involved in the process and their concerns regarding phase 2 would be addressed. All staff presentations had been held which included REST and 2020 Vision and their concerns would be taken on board. He believed that Phase 2 would be achieved to a large degree by natural wasteage.

The following points were raised by Members during the debate :

·         Members welcomed the integrated structure and the savings of £157k which had already been achieved as part of the REST process, a result of creating efficiencies through the redistribution of staff and better use of resources

·         Members recognised that adding capacity was fundamental to achieving the economic development objectives which included further working with partners such as the LEP, the Cheltenham Business Partnership and the Cheltenham Development Taskforce

·         The ongoing involvement of the Budget Scrutiny Working Group was welcomed

·         Faced with decreasing resources the council had progressed with commissioning and in 2013 business rates sharing arrangements meant the council had more of a direct influence on economic development in the town. It was recognised that the Athey report highlighted the need to focus more on economic development and the proposed model should achieve this.

·         Members recognised the need for leadership to take economic development forward and this structure would fit that purpose

·         A member highlighted that students were key to the town’s future and the fact that the university was now offering a course on cyber security was welcomed

·         Concern was expressed about staff and whether their fears about REST and 2020 were being addressed; meaningful engagement with staff was vital

·         It was proposed that the Managing Director’s job description should include attracting European funding to the town, including for tourism

The Cabinet Member Development and Safety welcomed the proposals. He believed they would ensure the delivery of the council’s key services in the long term in an effective and efficient manner.

RESOLVED (with one absention) THAT

1.    the restructure and the financial implications arising as set out in this report be approved.

2.    the Budget Scrutiny Working Group be requested to monitor the staffing budget for the Division to ensure that cost savings achieved from the Phase 2 restructure are not at the expense of service outcomes, quality or effectiveness

3.    the Chief Executive be authorised to make minor amendments to the structure prior to implementation