Minutes:
(A) Mr Partner asked the
following questions of the Leader or his nominee:-
"1. Why has the County Council made permanent staff redundant when it has then had to recruit staff to carry out their work, for example in the case of occupational therapists?
2. Why have permanent staff been made redundant and then been written to offering them new posts in the customer service centre?
3. Why have permanent staff been made redundant when the County Council is employing so many temporary staff?"
Mr Rushton replied
as follows:-
"1. As part of the Personalisation programme within
the Adults and Communities Department, (A&C), social care staff were offered the opportunity to express an interest in
voluntary redundancy in order to meet the efficiencies target identified in the
MTFS. As a consequence, the Department’s
Management Team agreed to a significant proportion of these requests, in order
to minimise the need for compulsory
redundancies. This included agreeing
voluntary redundancies for occupational therapists as well as other social care
staff.
However, in order to assist and stabilise the new arrangements, a small number of temporary
resources have been required. In
addition, temporary resources have also been required to cover maternity leave
and long term sickness. These temporary
measures have been put in place in order to maintain a safe and responsive
Adult Social Care Service for Leicestershire residents.
2. The Adult Social Care Customer Service
Centre has had some difficulty in recruiting experienced and skilled staff
despite placing several advertisements externally. The Customer Service Centre has, therefore,
explored alternative ways of recruiting staff who have
an understanding of the service and service issues. As a transitional arrangement 2 former Adults
and Communities Department employees have been appointed on a temporary basis
for 3 months.
3. The County Council has an Organisational Change policy which sets out the process for managers to follow when making staff redundant. The Council makes every effort to avoid compulsory redundancy situations by ending temporary contracts, seeking volunteers and redeploying employees who are at risk of redundancy to alternative jobs within the Council. Most reviews focus on specific service areas and if there are no temporary contracts in that area then permanent staff would be made redundant. In order to comply with the Fixed Term Workers Regulations, the Council treats temporary staff with two years service as permanent employees in service reviews.
The Council will make every effort to end a temporary contract before making a permanent employee redundant. However there are occasions when a temporary staff member may have a specific skill set that the permanent employee does not have."
Mr Partner asked the following supplementary
question:-
"I presume that the Council has incurred considerable costs in redundancy and pension payments, particularly in the case of any over 55's, who I assume would have their contributions topped up to compensate for lost years. Would the Lead Member be prepared to reveal how much of this additional cost has been met by the County Council tax payer?"
Mr Rushton replied
as follows:-
"I do not know but I will write to Mr Partner to let him know."
(B) Mr Pain asked the
following question of the Leader or his nominee:-
"Can the Leader please outline how Social Impact Bonds could benefit this Council in the medium to longer term?"
Mr Parsons replied as follows:-
"Social Impact Bonds are an exciting new way to bring in external
finance to deliver better public outcomes for less and have the potential to
provide lasting benefits within the County.
I am delighted that Leicestershire is one of four local authorities
invited by the Government to work with the Cabinet Office to develop a Social
Impact Bond for families with complex needs and will be referring to this later
in the meeting, in my Position Statement.
The scheme is a win/win proposal.
If it is a success there will be better preventative services which will
reduce the need for expensive public services in the future. However, if the scheme does not produce good
results then public bodies will not suffer because the risk will be born by
external financiers."
Mr Pain asked the following
supplementary question:-
"Initiatives such as Social Impact Bonds, the Big Society and
Localism in my opinion all require further devolution from
Mr Parsons replied as follows:-
"Of course a difficult task. I am
aided in this task by the Chief Executive who also spreads the Localism
word. So I suppose that the answer to
that is formally on Baroness Hanham's Localism Group
I do my very best and it is not difficult with Baroness Hanham,
because she is committed to Localism. I
am meeting Nick Hurd, because he is the Minister who
has been given responsibility for Social Impact Bonds, and I do try and spread
the word as I know other members of this Chamber do. The more people who spread the word
'Localism' and look at the way in which local authorities actually run their
budgets which is, in my view, mostly very very good
or excellent, then the better and maybe we can overcome the slight reticence,
if I could put in that way, of mandarins in Whitehall."
(C) Mr Sprason asked the following question of the Leader or his
nominee:-
"The Leader recently opened
the
Mr Parsons replied as follows:-
"This is a positive new opportunity for the young people and
children in Desford and the surrounding area. It will widen the curriculum choice available
and enable the development of local business interaction with the local
education sector. It will assist with:-
·
The
re-engagement of learners who would otherwise not be in education, employment
or training (NEET).
·
An
improvement in the attendance and behaviour of young
people who will be on a learning programme that meets
their needs.
·
An
improved progression pathway to Further Education or onto an Apprenticeship
with local businesses.
·
Improving
the skills of the local labour market.
·
Providing
a better match between the skills demanded by businesses and the supply from
the local community.
·
An
increase in the number of Construction Apprenticeships in Leicestershire.
In summary, it will provide a more varied education provision offer to
the young people of the area and support the long term aim of raising the participation age of all young people involved
in education or training to 18 years of age by 2015."
Mr Sprason
asked the following supplementary question:-
"Could I ask Mr Parsons if this is not
another example of an innovative approach locally led by this Authority that
actually helps to address some of the gaps in skills and employment for younger
people?"
Mr Parsons replied as follows:-
"I could not agree more with Mr Sprason. It was
seriously 'nice', if I could use that word, to go to Bosworth and actually see,
I forget how many now but it must have been about 40 young people,
actually take up these apprenticeships in the building industry. These guys were actually building walls,
making roofs, doing plumbing. That seems
to me to be a jolly good thing to do and the more of that in Leicestershire we
have the better."
(D) Mrs Page asked
the following question of the Leader or his nominee:-
"1. Can the Leader please outline how this Council is allocating its share of New Homes Bonus funding?
2. How will this allocation be utilised to develop schemes to benefit local residents?"
Mr Parsons replied as follows:-
"1. This
financial year the County Council has received just over £530,000 from
Government as New Homes Bonus funding.
This represents 20% of the total funding received by Leicestershire
authorities, with the remaining 80%, amounting to over £2.1M, allocated to
district councils.
I am pleased to confirm that the Cabinet has agreed to use this funding
to support the delivery of rural affordable housing across the County. There is a great need for small schemes of
affordable housing in our villages which local communities want. We will also support communities to identify
and develop new affordable housing schemes.
This year the County Council will directly fund two schemes that were
deemed to meet its criterion of being ‘shovel ready’. The criterion ensures that the sites are
deliverable and able to begin on the ground, with the key barrier to their
development being a shortfall in the available funding. The first scheme in Sapcote,
Blaby will receive a contribution of £332,000 from
the County Council and £100,000 from Blaby District
Council to deliver 12 affordable units. The second in Somerby,
Melton would provide 7 units with a contribution of £188,000 from the County,
the rest having been requested from Melton Borough Council.
2. The
NHB funding will clearly benefit the communities of Sapcote
and hopefully Somerby by providing much needed
affordable housing in these rural areas.
There are a number of other schemes across the County in varying states
of development that will continue to be progressed, including schemes in Thurlaston and
As well as delivering sites that would otherwise not have progressed, the County Council is part funding a Rural Housing Enabler post to ensure that future schemes are identified and supported through the development process. The Rural Housing Enabler will continue to work with communities across Leicestershire to identify and help bring forward affordable housing schemes, and this support has significantly helped the delivery of schemes.
The New Homes Bonus is designed to create a financial incentive to encourage housing growth. It gives us a powerful opportunity to help communities deliver the housing they want and need.
To ensure that the Council's investment in affordable housing is maximised, the District and County Councils need to work
together, combining New Homes Bonus funding to deliver units on the ground, as
we will see in Sapcote and hopefully Somerby later this year.
Not only will this bring clear social benefits to rural communities in desperate need of more affordable homes, but there is also a financial justification to combining County and District investment of New Homes Bonus in this way.
Using the New Homes Bonus directly to deliver more homes will generate additional New Homes Bonus funding in future years. Each affordable home delivered will raise approximately £11,000 over the next 6 years, with nearly £9,000 of this being paid to the relevant district council. So in the case of the two schemes proposed for this year, an additional £200,000 will be generated for future years of New Homes Bonus funding. The County Council wants this future New Homes Bonus to be reinvested in future rural affordable housing schemes, or in essential infrastructure which helps bring forward new homes, to perpetuate the social and financial benefits to communities across the County."
Mrs Page asked the following supplementary question:-
"Could I just clarify that the New Homes Bonus investments and rural housing initiatives will be for a period of six years. Will he be urging other housing authorities, and perhaps my local authority, to follow our example here at the County Council to enable these much needed facilities to be brought forward particularly in Lutterworth and the surrounding area?"
Mr Parsons replied as follows:-
"I have already been to Croft to see that scheme by Blaby District Council which is absolutely superb. We are now dealing with Melton on a scheme in Somerby. As it says in my answer, we also have Sapcote here which is in Blaby. So these are schemes which are very forward looking but much needed and if I can do anything to help Mrs Page's Division in Lutterworth and the surrounding areas then I certainly will."
(E) Mrs Richards asked
the following question of the Leader or his nominee:-
"1. With the EU ban on the manufacture of traditional light bulbs, what is this Council doing to encourage the use of energy saving light bulbs such as Compact Fluorescent Lamps (CFLs)?
2. What facilities are available to recycle CFLs safely at the end of their lifetime?"
Mr Osborne replied as follows:-
"1. Within the corporate and schools estate
the use of traditional light bulbs is comparatively small due to a policy
decision taken 20 years ago, which has been to replace those few that remain
with Compact Fluorescent Lamps (CFLs) or other units
on failure or during alteration and/or refurbishment.
The County
Council encourages energy efficiency in the community in a number of ways such
as through the SHIRE Climate Change Grants, Big Switch Off and our support for
the Communities Cutting Carbon project run by the Rural Community Council and
De Montfort University. We do not run specific schemes promoting the
use of Compact Fluorescent Lamps as legislation has addressed the issue, and
national organisations such as the Energy Savings Trust, and the Act on CO2 campaign have raised public
awareness of the issue.
2.
For all
lamp replacements carried out by contractors directly employed by LCC, the CFLs are removed to the contractor's own site and once a
sufficient number have been accumulated, they are returned to the wholesale
supplier who provides the contractor with a certificate and recycles the CFLs. For lamps
replaced by schools where they are purchased through ESPO, the old lamps are
returned to ESPO and they in turn return them to the wholesale supplier for
recycling.
Recycling
facilities for CFLs are available for the public to
use at all fourteen Recycling and Household Waste Sites within
Leicestershire. These sites are operated
under contracts on behalf of the County Council."
Mrs Richards asked the following
supplementary question:-
"How can the public find out more about recycling of Compact
Fluorescent Lamps?"
Mr Osborne replied as follows:-
"The County Council website carries a list of materials which can
be recycled at each and every one of the recycling stations that we have. Also on the website, the process by which the
separation is done is explained and anything more that Mrs
Richards would care to find out about CFLs."
(F) Mr Houseman asked the following question of the Leader or
his nominee:-
"Will the Leader please comment upon the success of the newly launched Leicestershire Handyperson Service being offered to older people in the County?"
Mr Sprason
replied as follows:-
"The Leicestershire Handyperson Service commenced on
Between April and August 2011, a total of 266 enquiries about the
service were received by Mears. This has
led to a total of 168 jobs being completed.
Officers are working closely with Mears to look at ways of increasing
the number of referrals and the sources they originate from so that the
benefits of this service can be fully realised.
Mears are undertaking a wide variety of jobs for older people and
providing them with successful outcomes, which illustrates
the value of this service."
Mr Houseman asked the following
supplementary question:-
"We hear a lot about rogue traders.
How will this scheme help to tackle this very serious issue?"
Mr Sprason
replied as follows:-
"This scheme has got tradesmen that have been checked out, which
gives people peace of mind, particularly older people, and all the tradesmen
have actually had
(G) Mr Wright asked the following question of the Leader or his
nominee:-
"Can the Leader please give an update on the Youth Service, indicating
whether, (a) the intended reorganisation of the Youth
Service is on schedule and (b) the planned reductions in service costs have so
far been achieved?"
Mr Ould replied as
follows:-
"The reorganisation has been
completed and the newly structured service became operational on
The planned reductions have been achieved and the restructured service will be delivered within budget.
As agreed by the Cabinet the Youth Service is now delivering targeted youth work through:
· More flexible and responsive service delivery.
· Resources allocated according to need.
· A focus on vulnerable young people and priority neighbourhoods."
(H) Mr Max Hunt asked the following question of the Chairman of
the Scrutiny Commission:-
"1. Would the Chairman of the Scrutiny
Commission and his fellow Commissioners please consider how Scrutiny can best
examine the time and project management of Traffic Regulation Orders (
2. Could this examination focus in particular on TROs for Residents' Parking Zones and use as a case study the West Loughborough Parking project, which has only just completed its formal consultation after over three years in gestation?"
Mr Galton
replied as follows:-
"The Scrutiny Commissioners, Deputy Commissioners and the Chairmen, Vice
Chairmen and Spokesmen of the two Overview and Scrutiny Committees met recently
(11 July) to consider potential issues for inclusion in the work programmes of Scrutiny bodies for the period up to January
2012. I note that Mr
Hunt was unable to attend this meeting but had the opportunity to submit
ideas/suggestions.
The Scrutiny Commissioners meet regularly to review the Overview and
Scrutiny work programme and I will ensure that this
request is considered by them. Their
conclusions will be reported to the Scrutiny Commission in due course."
(I) Mr Wyatt asked the following question of the Leader or his
nominee:-
"1. Is the Leader aware of the recent
purchase of a house by 'Advanced Childcare' in Greenhill, and the high level of
concern among local residents?
2. Would the Leader be prepared to arrange
a meeting between himself and/or the Lead Member and myself along with other
local campaigners including the local MP Mr A Bridgen, to discuss the impact of this facility on the
local community?"
Mr Ould replied as
follows:-
"1. The County Council’s Children and Young
People’s Service became aware in July this year of a company purchasing a
property in Greenhill with the intention of opening a children’s home. It was clear from those initial contacts that
there was a strength of feeling locally about this
prospective children’s home. Officers
passed those concerns on to the company concerned. However, it is not the County Council’s
intention at this stage to have any of its children in care placed at this
children’s home, nor is it the County Council’s responsibility to arbitrate
between the company, Ofsted, and local people.
2. As the Lead Member, I will be happy to
meet interested parties regarding this issue."
(J) Mr Wright asked the following question of the Leader or his
nominee:-
"Can the Leader please give an additional update (further to the
one provided by the Lead Member to Mr Jennings CC for
the July meeting) concerning progress at the Blaby
PRU and clarify any issues to do with management and leadership at that
centre?"
Mr Ould
replied as follows:-
"Staff and senior leaders at the Blaby
Centre have started this term with enthusiasm and commitment in improving the
attainment of children and young people at the Centre.
Since the Council meeting in July, the following are the key
developments with regard to leadership and management:
·
The
amalgamation of the primary and key stage 3 PRUs on
to the Blaby site to form the new 5 -14 Short Stay
School bringing together key stages 1,2 and 3 .
·
Interim
leadership arrangements have been put in place following the departure of the
previous Headteacher.
In order to manage this period of transition, the Acting Headteacher has been given support from 2 experienced Headteachers who are National Leaders in Education. Support is also being provided at Deputy Headteacher level from the School Improvement and
Performance Service and also from the senior leadership from
·
A new Headteacher has been appointed to start at the Blaby Centre in January.
The Management Committee continues to be supportive and
challenging."
Mr Wright asked the following
supplementary question:-
"Is the Lead Member able to assure me that the new Headteacher appointed to start at the Blaby
Centre in January will not require the same expensive outside support being
provided by the experienced Headteachers just
now?"
Mr Ould
replied as follows:-
"I will need to take advice but I would not expect any external
support to be required at that point in time."
(K) Mr Miah asked the following
question of the Leader or his nominee:-
"1. With regard to the projected shortfall in
the Dedicated Schools grant of £2.3m this financial year, can the Leader please
explain how this cut in funding has come about?
2. Can the Leader also give an assurance
that funding to schools can be maintained at current levels?
3. Can he also explain why, after promises from the Tory and Liberal Parties before the election, as well as the introduction of the pupil premium, according to his own reports, Leicestershire is still the lowest funded education authority in the country?"
Mr Ould
replied as follows:-
"1. There is no cut to the grant. Dedicated Schools Grant is paid to local
authorities on a per pupil basis and final allocations are not confirmed until
June in the financial year in question.
As such, the Schools Budget is set on a local calculation of
resource. Regrettably, as a result of
the structural changes to the settlement which saw an additional £48.6m in
former grant funding absorbed into the settlement, the estimate taken into the
budget setting exercise was 0.6% in excess of the entitlement to grant.
2. Funding for schools is set by the
school funding settlement. There is no information available from the
Department for Education on that funding settlement for 2012 onwards and
therefore it is not possible to give an assurance. As soon as we have information we will be
able to share that.
3. The current schools funding system is unchanged from that inherited from the previous Labour Government, with the exception of the national allocations of pupil premium. The Coalition Government has started to consult on a new revenue and capital funding system and we have made the case for change along with other low funded authorities. The Government proposes that a new ‘fair formula’ is established that will support the needs of pupils and is clear and transparent. I expect we would all welcome that."
(L) Mr Miah asked the following
question of the Leader or his nominee:-
"With the welcome development of the Eastern Gateway new road and housing complex in Loughborough East, can the Leader give an up-to date time line as to when residents can expect 'residents' preference parking' to be delivered in the streets around Loughborough railway station?"
Mrs Pendleton replied as
follows:-
"A 'residents' preference parking' scheme for the
(M) Ms
Betty Newton asked the following question of the Leader or his nominee:-
"1. What is the cost of the service for enforcing parking for this and the last financial year?
2. What income has been received by the service for this and the last financial year?
3. Given the reports that there is a projected deficit on the management and income of this scheme, what are the reasons for this deficit and what is being done to manage this?
4. Where will the additional money come from to meet the deficit?"
Mrs Pendleton replied as
follows:-
"1. 2011/12 forecast outturn expenditure = £1,123,000.
2010/11 outturn expenditure = £1,156,000.
2. 2011/12 forecast outturn income = £874,000.
2010/11 outturn income = £929,000.
3. A decline in the number of Penalty Charge Notices issued and the nature of the current enforcement arrangements means that it is not possible for the service to break even. Future service provision is being reviewed with the district councils, who have presented outline proposals on how to make the on street parking enforcement more cost effective. Further work to develop these proposals is currently being undertaken. If the proposals from the districts are not practical or do not reduce costs sufficiently, then the provision of the service by the private sector will be explored. Work to obtain prices for private sector provision of the service is on-going.
4. This
will be reviewed through the year but will be managed within the bottom line of
the Environment and Transport Department’s revenue budgets taking into account
all potential areas of overspend and underspend."
Ms Newton asked the
following supplementary question on the reply to question 3:-
"Will we be very careful about this in regard to using private sector companies, when you consider what happens with private sector clamping companies when people do not park properly? I would not like to see this as a money-raising exercise for the private sector."
Mrs Pendleton replied as follows:-
"Yes, we will be very careful but of course we have to make sure that we get better value and that the operatives actually carry out their jobs properly. This review will obviously look into that and then we will make a decision."
(N) Ms
Betty Newton asked the following question of the Leader or his nominee:-
"1. What
changes in policy have there been to the delivery of free Home to School
Transport in the County in respect of pupils eligible for this service since 5
May 2005?
2. What have been the
financial implications for each of these changes?
3. Which schools in
particular have been affected by these changes and how many pupils are there in
each?
4. Are there any plans over
the lifetime of the upcoming MTFS period to change the policy on free Home to School
Transport; if so what are they, what would they cost, which schools would be
affected and how many pupils in each would be involved?"
Mr Ould
replied as follows:-
"1. Changes were made to the Leicestershire home
to school transport policy in 2008 in response to national requirements. These changes provided clarity regarding
eligibility for:-
·
Financial
assistance with transport costs for low income families;
·
Financial
assistance with transport for families with disabled children or where the parent/carer may be disabled;
·
Financial
assistance with transport for families that have selected a faith school.
In 2010, a Scrutiny Review Panel was established to review the policy.
The Panel was asked to consider:-
a) how ‘available’ walking routes are assessed and the
appropriateness of the current method of assessment;
b) the issue of ‘Historic Exceptions’ and whether these
services are still justified.
In undertaking the review the Panel was asked to have regard to the financial,
environmental and health implications of any proposed changes to existing
policies in the context of the legal obligations placed on the Local
Authority. A range of outcomes was
recommended and subsequently approved by the Cabinet. No changes were made to the eligibility
criteria for free home to school transport.
However, it was agreed that steps should be taken to improve the system
that enables families to appeal any refusal of free home to school transport,
and the process for requesting a route to be reviewed. These improvements have been implemented.
Whilst not as a
result of changes in policy regarding eligibility for free home to school
transport, an additional impact is currently being experienced by some families
as a result of:-
a)
the use
of the more accurate electronic mapping system that is now used to measure home
to school distance;
b)
the
ongoing re-assessment of routes which may mean that some routes previously
determined ‘unavailable’ (and therefore requiring the provision of free home to
school transport) may become ‘available’ (meaning that the free home to school
transport will be withdrawn).
These issues were
fully examined by the Scrutiny Panel.
2. There have been no direct financial
implications as a result of the changes made to the policy in 2008.
The accuracy of
the electronic mapping system has meant a sizeable number of families will no
longer be eligible for transport as they fall short of statutory walking
distances. Similarly, as a result of the
re-assessment of some routes to school 14 routes have now been determined as
available and therefore transport will be withdrawn in due course in accordance
with Scrutiny Panel recommendations. The
financial impact of these changes will not be fully known until the end of the
financial year.
3. The changes made to the policy in 2008 are
relevant to all schools.
Schools affected
to date as a result of re-assessments of routes and walking distances
are:- Fleckney
Primary, Anstey Martin High, Birstall
Stonehill High, Birstall Longslade College, Hinckley Redmoor
High, Countesthorpe College, Castle Donington CC, Groby CC, Brookvale High, Enderby Brockington School, Limehurst
High, Ashby Ivanhoe CC, Ashby School, and Barrow Humphrey Perkins High. The actual numbers of children affected are
not known at this point in time.
4. A review of home to school transport policy
is due to start shortly in order to consider how the Local Authority will
address the new requirements of Academies,
The review is
unlikely to change the policy in relation to free transport because all local authorities must abide by
the statutory walking distance criteria."
(O) Mr Max Hunt asked the following question of the Leader or
his nominee:-
"1. With land and facilities being required to
be conveyed to Trusts under new legislation, what safeguards exist within the
County's conveyancing procedures to ensure that:-
a) Public access to non-educational
facilities, such as swimming pools, footpaths and nurseries is maintained
within the deeds;
and
b) Land with no traceable title, or adverse
possession, is not conveyed into Trust ownership without consultation within the
community and district authority?
2. In the case of the proposed conveyance of land and buildings to Academies, what public access is available prior to a formal agreement between the LA and an Academy?"
Mr Rushton
replied as follows:-
"1. Only land and buildings that are being
used by the school at the relevant date transfer to the Academy Trust. In the case of Community Schools this is done
by way of a lease – the freehold of the site remains with the County
Council. The Secretary of State has
prescribed a model form for the lease which runs for 125 years. In other cases the transfer may be by way of
either a leasehold or freehold interest.
Land not used by
the school at the time the Governing Body decides to become an Academy is reserved
out of the lease.
Public Footpaths
and other facilities not used by the school at the relevant date such as
nurseries, or former caretakers' residences are excluded from the lease. Where premises do transfer trusts are
encouraged by the Government to permit continued community use. Each case will depend on its own
circumstances and will be examined carefully before any agreement is concluded.
Where there is
land to which the County Council has no traceable title or which is subject to
an adverse possession claim this will complicate the conveyancing
process as the solicitors acting for the Academy Trust will wish to ensure that
their client is able to use all the land transferring to it. It will be necessary to engage with all
parties who can assist in establishing the true ownership of any land which is
scheduled to transfer.
2. Where public access to facilities at
the school such as a nursery, a library, a swimming pool or adult learning
exists prior to the school becoming an academy, then this access will be
preserved either in the Commercial Transfer Agreement or by way of a licence or lease back to the County Council. As I have said earlier, even if this is not
the case, Academy Trusts are encouraged by the Government to permit continued
community use."
Mr
Hunt asked the following supplementary question:-
"Confirming
the conveyance of land from the Local Authority to Educational Trusts or
Academies, the answer appears to say that there will be no automatic public
consultation on this and I would like to ask the Lead Member how he would
respond to a parish council, a local group or an individual, who lays a claim
to land, as indeed they did in Breedon, where there
is a dispute after the conveyance has been made? Would that go to the High Court like the Breedon case? What
safeguards have we got here?"
Mr Rushton replied
as follows:-
"All I can
say is that I do not know and that I will have to write to Mr
Hunt."
(P) Mr Max Hunt asked the following question of the Leader or
his nominee:-
"1. Would the Leader please provide a breakdown
for each Department of the number of full time equivalent staff currently
employed?
2. Could he also please provide for each
Department for the periods 2010/11 and 2011/12 (to August) the number of:-
Compulsory
redundancies
Voluntary
redundancies
Resignations
Early retirements
Retirements
New posts created
New
recruits?
3. Finally, could he provide the number of staff expected to be lost in total by the end of this four year period for each Department?"
Mr Rushton
replied as follows:-
"1. The Council employs 5,425.41 (
Chief Executive's 348.32
Environment and Transport 783.10
CYPS 1515.86
Corporate Resources 951.10
Adults and Communities 1827.03
Totals 5425.41
2. Compulsory redundancies:- 2010/11 2011/12
Chief Executive's 6 6
Environment and Transport 4 7
CYPS 35 13
Corporate Resources 14 12
Adults and
Communities 20 7
Totals 79 45
Voluntary
redundancies
Chief Executive's 8 6
Environment and Transport 6 17
CYPS 27 11
Corporate Resources 13 6
Adults and
Communities 31 60
Totals 85
100
Resignations
Chief Executive's 19 10
Environment and Transport 19 10
CYPS 66 25
Corporate Resources 31 15
Adults and
Communities 170 57
Totals 305
117
Early
retirements
Chief
Executive's 0
0
Environment and
Transport 0
0
CYPS 1
1
Corporate Resources 2
0
Adults and
Communities 3
0
Totals 6
1
Retirements
Chief
Executive's 8
2
Environment and
Transport 16
7
CYPS 19
3
Corporate Resources 17
6
Adults and
Communities 52 20
Totals 112
38
New posts
created - It was not possible to provide
this information in the time available as the system does not record the
creation of new posts, only those employees appointed to posts, and it would
need to be produced manually.
New recruits (to
new and existing jobs)
2010/11 Casual Temporary Permanent
Chief Executive's 6 5 4
Environment and Transport 8 3
2
CYPS 14 6 15
Corporate Resources
6 10 6
Adults and
Communities 75 22 6
Totals 109 46 33
2011/12 To
date Casual
Temporary Permanent
Chief Executive's 2 8 1
Environment and
Transport 1 3 3
CYPS 16 7 18
Corporate Resources
2 19 4
Adults and
Communities 43 48 2
Totals 64 85 28
3. The number of posts expected to be lost during the four year period is 1,000.
To date the Council has made 309 staff redundant.
Unfortunately, it is not possible to provide a more detailed estimate at this time."