Minutes:
The following questions from Councillors had been received:
Councillor John Matthissen to Councillor Whitehead:
“How many members of staff have left since 1st January 2017 and, assuming we conduct exit interviews as is best practice, how many of these have given the move to Ipswich as a reason?”
Councillor Whitehead responded:
“Thank you for your question. The Half-Yearly Performance Reporting paper on today’s agenda includes a new measure on page 111 that shows the number of staff leavers for the period 1st April to 30th September 2017. You will see that there were 20 leavers in the first quarter and 38 in the second quarter. Of this total of 58, 16 stated the move as the reason for leaving. Three due to the move to Stowmarket and the other 13 due to the move to Endeavour House. This does not quite cover the time period that you requested, but is the current information available and will continue to be included in future performance reports.”
Councillor Matthissen then asked a supplementary question as to whether the first two quarters of the year could be reconciled in addition to high staff turnover. Councillor Whitehead explained the 16 leavers whom had stated the reason for leaving was the move were not in addition to the response to question 5.
Councillor John Matthissen to Councillor Wilshaw
“During 2017/18 how many private sector empty homes have been returned to occupancy as a result of council intervention, and what is the estimate of the number currently empty across the District?”
Councillor Wilshaw responded:
“31 homes have been returned to occupancy in the first two quarters of 2017/18
The current number of empty properties stands at:
· 182 properties: empty 6 months to 2 years · 71 properties: 2 years+”
Councillor Matthissen then asked a supplementary question regarding the numbers being high and whether any resource had been put into lowering this figure. Also did the Council have any power to ensure occupancy rather than being left empty in extreme cases? Councillor Wilshaw explained although there may be the incentive, the Council did not have the powers in terms of the Private Sector. It may be possible to take some action, dependant on the nature and condition of the property, but this was the exception rather than the rule.
Councillor John Matthissen to Councillor Wilshaw
“Can the weekly void sheet show the average void days for re-let properties?”
Councillor Wilshaw responded:
“The Voids Working Sheet is sent to Mid Suffolk members. It is just a working sheet which shows current void properties, forthcoming voids and those ready to let. This document is used by officers at Voids Meetings and by the different teams involved in the voids process.
The idea of members receiving it was so they can see what vacancies there are in their wards. Re-let times are calculated on a different document and performance reported on a quarterly basis. As part of introducing a Void Project from December average void times will be reported monthly during the project, between December 2017 and May 2018.”
Councillor Matthissen responded by saying he thought as the document was produced on a spreadsheet it would automatically calculate the average void days for re-let properties.
Councillor Penny Otton to Councillor Wilshaw
“What has been the rent loss, and the Council Tax costs as a result of voids in Mid Suffolk for the year 2016/17 and from April 2017 to date?”
Councillor Wilshaw responded:
“The rent loss as a result of properties being empty and rent not being charged in the year 16/17 was - £195,377. For this year 17/18 (Apr – Sept) the figure is £100,284
The cost of paying Council Tax on empty properties was £44,567 in the year 16/17, we haven’t as yet collected data for the year to date.”
Councillor Otton was concerned about the last statement of year to date figures being part of the HRA. Councillor Wilshaw explained the data was being kept up to date, however, in respect of Council Tax these figures would be produced in due course.
Councillor John Matthissen to Councillor Gowrley
“What is the urgency to pursue merger when the councils are already attempting to deal with multiple exceptional issues such as the move to Ipswich, high staff turnover and vacancies, lack of a 5 year land supply and at least five development projects on our own account in Mid Suffolk alone.”
Councillor Whitehead (in Councillor Gowrley’s absence) responded:
“It is of course our role as a Council to be able to do more than one thing at a time. Progress on introducing a Joint Local Plan remains on track and this is the substantive way of addressing the 5 year land supply issue. We have had an increase in staff turnover as a result of recent office moves but this was relatively small (16 people) and work is now complete; and so I expect we will return to more usual turnover and vacancy levels.
It is a fundamental part of our role though to plan for the future. With this in mind it is essential that we look now at what the council should look like for the future. It was with this in mind that we asked the Chief Executive to look at our options. The Cabinets have formed an initial view that dissolving the exisiting Councils to form a new District Council appears to be the most viable and preferable solution. This question of whether Mid Suffolk and Babergh should form a new Council has however been around since 2011 and could not happen before 2019 at the very earliest. I therefore believe that it is right that we are looking at these issues now; but we are doing so in a proper and measured manner, that subject to Babergh Cabinet this week, will move on to a period of comprehensive engagement with all Councillors, Towns & Parishes, Electors, Stakeholders and Staff.” Councillor Matthissen stated he still did not understand the urgency from the answer given and questioned whether the process was being conducted in a measured way.
Councillor John Matthissen to Councillor Gowrley
“Why was the September council meeting cancelled, without the Chairman’s agreement, at a time of great difficulty for the council, and consequent concern of members?”
Councillor Whitehead (in Councillor Gowrley’s absence) responded:
“The meeting of the Full Council scheduled for 21 September 2017 was cancelled due to a lack of formal substantive business for the Council to consider. The Leader and Chairman’s agreement was sought for this cancellation. It was imperative to give all Councillors early notification of the cancellation and despite several attempts to contact the Chairman it was not possible to gain his agreement before the cancellation notification was sent.”
Councillor Matthissen gave thanks for the response.
Councillor John Matthissen to Councillor Whitehead
“Why have the Green Group never received a complete set of written answers to questions submitted regarding the issue of redundancy notices and related issues?”
Councillor Whitehead responded:
“A written response will be circulated due to the number of questions asked.”
Councillor John Matthissen to Councillor Whitehead
“Why has the departure of our strategic IT Director, Paul Doe, not been reported to members, and what steps have been taken to replace him?”
Councillor Morley – Lead Member for Digital – on behalf of Councillor Horn responded:
“Apologies this was an oversight and should have been reported. However, following his departure the County have put interim arrangements in place, details of these are available if requested.”
Councillor Matthissen retained an underlying unease and wished to receive further details in respect of the IT Strategy. Councillor Morley responded by explaining an organisational chart was available if required and was meeting with the Assistant Director for Customers. She would report back following this meeting. A handout was circulated which showed the current organisation chart of Suffolk County Council’s IT department. Members should not contact the County Council’s IT department directly, this should be done via Sara Wilcock, Assistant Director for Customer Services.
Councillor Rachel Eburne to Councillor Horn
“As Members, we are often referred to the Council’s intranet site, Connect, for information.
Most of the information about projects is out of date by several months. Indeed the Leisure Strategy, on the Agenda for Monday’s Cabinet meeting, is shown as due to be presented to Cabinet in September 2017.
Another example is the implementation of Universal Credit project which hasn’t been updated since 17 August and notes a “tbc go live date” for Sudbury despite the fact that this has already happened.
In the Members section it has the 2016/17 meeting timetable and an instruction with links on how to email the Executive Committee but not the Cabinet.
I could list many more.
Please can you advise when Connect will be up to date and we can confidently rely on the contents. Or provide us with an alternative method of understanding particular work and projects.”
Councillor Horn responded:
“Councillor Eburne is absolutely correct in that there are several areas on the project and programme pages and other areas of Connect that require updating. This is designed to be a live reporting tool and so will always be partly out of date but there are key areas where the information can and should be more timely.
We have already identified that it is timely and prudent to review ‘how we manage our programmes and projects’ and this is commencing with a workshop of our Senior Leadership team on 24 January. This will look at the presentation of information in relation to the JSP, communication, reporting, roles and responsibilities, the use of Sharepoint to name a few. In the meantime the Business Improvement Officers will continue to support and encourage Corporate Managers and their teams to reinvigorate the use of Connect for the visibility and transparency of key project and programme information.”
With regard to the other areas on Connect that Councillor Eburne alludes to, these are the responsibility of the relevant data owners. Your comments on committee meetings have been passed to the new Corporate Manager for Democratic Services, and Corporate Managers have been asked to review their areas asap.
Councillor Eburne felt to say “always partly out of date” was unacceptable. A timescale should be issued as to when Connect would be up to date and until that time she would be directing any queries to either Members themselves or the Assistant Directors. She considered this to be a very poor example of good practice. Councillor Horn agreed and explained now the Assistant Director for Customers was in post he hoped to share good news imminently. There were no timescales to report at present. He would be meeting with the Assistant Director for Customers and following this meeting there not only would be a strategy but also a timetable.
Councillor Rachel Eburne to Councillor John Whitehead
“At Babergh District Council meeting on Tuesday 21 November 2017, Babergh members were provided with staffing costs for both council’s pre-integration in 2011 and now. The figures for Mid Suffolk were £9,071,000 then £11,158,000 which is a 23.7% increase. Please can you explain why?
Please can you also explain why the current figure is £1.6 million more than Babergh's figure?
Also - given we have worked together for over 6 years, why is information like this not shared as a matter of course in an open and transparent way?”
Councillor Whitehead responded:
“Thank you for your question. The total cost for Mid Suffolk in 2011/12 was £9,071k, comprising £8,969k on payroll and £102k off-payroll costs. In 2016/17 the equivalent figures were a total of £11,158k comprising £9,965k on payroll and £1,193k off-payroll costs. There are several reasons why the payroll costs have changed over this period of time and this is shown in the table below:
There has been a steady increase in off-payroll costs each year between 2011/12 and 2016/17, as the Councils integrated the workforce, developed new ways of working and undertook new initiatives to deliver the Joint Strategic Plan, but this trend is expected to reverse in 2017/18, based on costs to date. As you will be aware, Joint Overview and Scrutiny Committee will receive an Information Bulletin at its meeting on 18th December about off-payroll costs and you will see more information related to these costs in that bulletin.
Mid Suffolk’s total figures are higher than Babergh’s at the end of 2016/17 mainly because of the difference in payroll costs of £1.4m. This reflects the different delivery models for services that were in existence last year. Mid Suffolk had an internal Public Realm and Housing Repairs Team, whereas for Babergh these were managed through an external contract. From 1st April 2017 Babergh’s Housing Repairs function has transferred back in-house, so their payroll costs will increase this year.
In relation to your last point, I would like to remind you that on 7th December 2016 Lindsay Barker sent an email to all Members of both councils setting out information on staffing costs, following a number of questions about staff savings from integration. The information at that time went up to 2015/16. In response to a question from Cllr John Hinton to Babergh’s last Council meeting, the information was updated to include 2016/17 costs. The Mid Suffolk information was updated at the same time and the intention was to share this, but your question was asked at Council on 23rd November before this could happen. The intention from now on is to update this information on an annual basis and share it with all Members.”
Councillor Eburne considered there not only had been poor communications to members in relation to staffing costs, she hoped this figure had been included in the budget for this financial year. This was a poor example of working together.
A general question was raised by Councillor Otton asking for clarification as to when the deadline for questions to Cabinet members could be received. The Corporate Manager for Democratic Services explained a section had been omitted from the Constitution on this issue and as such questions would be accepted up until the day before the meeting, however, the closer to the meeting the more likely to receive a written response. The Chief Executive reiterated that Members could ask questions of both Officers and Members at any time of the day of the year, they did not have to wait until Council or Cabinet. |