282
Councillor Cory, Leader of the Council, introduced the report, which detailed the transforming of the Council in light of the Covid-19 crisis and reduction in support from Government. This had been a necessary process and the Leader thanked the staff, Cabinet and members working on the plans, which were based on the Council’s key priorities. These were designed to optimise innovation, efficiency and use of digital options to deliver savings on service delivery and maximise income so as to allow investment and change to reduce service costs. New ways of working would be explored, including partnership working, such as with Community 360 and others, to meet demands and challenges and deliver recovery plans. The decisions needed were difficult but would have been even harder if the Council had not been so successful in gaining commercial income. There would, regrettably, need to be some redundancies.
The Portfolio Holder for Business and Resources expounded on this, describing the Council’s plans as a cross-cutting strategy across the five themes of the Strategic Plan, in line with what was set out in June. 20% of the impact was on front line service provision, with the rest found by commercial income generation and from back-office savings. The Council would provide support to those facing redundancy, such as in finding new employment.
Richard Block, Assistant Director for Corporate and Improvement, underlined this as the greatest budget challenge that the Council had ever faced, and that the cross-cutting approach was a hard task. The formal consultation would be started as early as possible so as to ensure that staff could help shape the plans in the run-up to January 2021. An example of this was given by Leonie Rathbone, Assistant Director (Customer), who explained that vacancies were being carried so as to avoid redundancies, where possible.
The Panel requested details about any alternative ways of saving which had been considered but rejected, and more clarity about how many of the 20 ‘at risk’ posts were likely to be lost and how increased workloads for the remaining staff could be minimised. The Portfolio Holder for Business and Resources assured the Panel that the situation was being constantly monitored, but that unless circumstances changed or Government support increased, the financial outlook would be very difficult after 2020-21. Savings decisions had been taken on a ‘least harm’ to services approach. Alternative possibilities had included cuts to the large expenditure on front-line neighbourhood services, however this had been rejected, given the importance of the service. One individual in an ‘at risk’ post had already found alternative employment elsewhere and the Senior Management Team met weekly to discuss empty posts, recruitment and identifying where at-risk staff can move to vacancies. Regarding minimisation of increases to workloads, these were being mitigated by the ongoing digital transformation work.
Officers were asked whether the noted drop in demand for the licensing and building control teams was cyclical and whether the impact on the housing team would have a knock-on effect on service users. Lucie Breadman, Assistant Director (Environment) explained that vacancies were being held in building control. The team generated income, so recruitment can be carried out if work and income increased. Teams dealing with housing and noise nuisance issues had been working remotely and, although complaint numbers had increased, no issues had been reported regarding the new remote service provision.
The Panel discussed what the public would notice of changes to service provision, should these plans go ahead. The Portfolio Holder emphasised the minimal effect on front-line services but cautioned that the 2021-22 financial year would see even harder decisions having to be made.
The Panel questioned why improvements to make recruitment more robust had not been in place already. It was explained that there was now a greater emphasis on assessing whether the Council could cope without filling each individual vacancy as they arose. Posts were still filled where necessary, but extra control was being exercised by the Senior Management Team to assess each vacancy.
It was asked whether conversations had been held with other Essex local authorities regarding ways to cut costs whilst maintaining services. Examples raised included whether price elasticity of car parking charges had been examined to see if changes to this would be likely to increase revenue and whether there was any way to expand Colchester’s market.
Councillor Mike Lilley, Portfolio Holder for Communities, Wellbeing and Public Safety, agreed that it was difficult to project parking incomes, but noted that parking prices and strategies from across the UK were assessed by the Council and Parking Partnership. Colchester had been found to give best value for money in parking in the North Essex/South Suffolk area. The new Parking Strategy and tariffs were expected to be completed soon, but it was cautioned that a large drop in income had been experienced due to Covid-19. There remained a balance to strike between protecting the environment, by raising parking charges, and supporting local businesses, by lowering charges.
The MiPermit scheme was being used even more effectively, lowering the cost of collections and cash transactions. Cost increases were likely, which could move people towards using buses and ‘Park and Ride’, with car parks outside Colchester centre dropping prices to persuade more people to walk into Town. A scheme was being discussed with the Business Improvement District to give parking discounts to those who shop in Town and the aim was to achieve this by December 2020. The Panel agreed the need to balance commitments to reduce causes of climate change with the Council’s duty to support local businesses, build community wealth and encourage visitors. The Portfolio Holder for Business and Resources noted that community wealth building was possible but that there were limited opportunities for savings.
The £150k saving on procurement was highlighted and queried as to why this had not been found previously. The Assistant Director (Corporate and Improvement) explained that a more corporate approach was being taken. A Senior Management Board would review all significant procurements and seek better value for money. Shared procurement opportunities, to include other local authorities, were being examined.
The Panel was informed that proposals had been put in place to increase the number of back-office shared services with other local authorities. Payroll services were already provided in this way and other services would be examined.
Panel members praised the report content and format and requested that these be emulated in future.
It was noted that the Council’s grounds maintenance contract was due to end in 2023 and a Panel member suggested that the Council should look at ways to provide this contract work, either by insourcing or through cooperation with local communities and groups. The Panel asked whether alternative ways of providing services were under consideration and whether Cabinet were examining ways of minimising the cost of maintaining the Council’s estate. The Portfolio Holder for Business and Resources confirmed that the Council had an asset register which was under review and that questions were being asked to ensure that the most efficient and cost-effective use was made of Council properties. Some properties were being looked at for greater use, some land for re-wilding and the use of Rowan House was under consideration. The Assistant Director (Corporate and Improvement) explained that Rowan House was currently very lightly used, although provision had been made for people needed to use the office. Examples of partnership working were given, including on pooling estate assets, sharing back-office functions and locations for front-line service provision.
The Chairman emphasised the wish for the Panel to scrutinise any plans for alternative ways of working and providing services and directed the Assistant Director and Democratic Services Officer to discuss how best to bring alternative ways of working to the Panel for consideration.
Dan Gascoyne, Chief Operating Officer, detailed the broader budget strategy and explained it was designed to deliver savings whilst sustaining front-line services. A number of opportunities and income generation ideas were under consideration and would be able to be examined by the Panel once they were ready.
RESOLVED that the Scrutiny Panel: -
(a)
Has noted the proposals to Cabinet set out in the business cases at Appendix A and all actions necessary to prepare to implement them prior to final approval by Cabinet in January 2021, and considered whether to make recommendations related to these
(b)
Will scrutinise and consider, at a future date and following officer advice: -
(i)
Alternative ways of working and service provision involving partners and communities
(ii)
A review of the Council’s use of its property estate
(c)
Has noted the excellence and clarity of the reports to Cabinet on the Budget 2021/22 and the Business Case for Council Efficiency and Transformation Programme.