Agenda and minutes

To confirm the minutes of the meeting held on 25 January 2011 (CA3) and to receive for information any matters arising from them.

The minutes of the meeting held on 25 January 2011 were agreed and signed subject to the following corrections.

 

Minute no. 4/11 on the supplementary question from Councillor Pressel:

 

Councillor Mrs Heathcoat was asked if she considered it less likely that the Council would win the bid for £2m £10m" (£2m p.a. for 5 years) now that staffing had been reduced by 50%.

 

Minute 7/11 on the Draft Corporate Plan adding comments from Councillor Patrick, Opposition Leader relating to areas that required further emphasis such as skills shortages and equalities and looking forward to progress reports on breaking the cycle of deprivation and on the action plans.

 

 

Any county councillor may, by giving notice to the Proper Officer by 9 am on the working day before the meeting, ask a question on any matter in respect of the Cabinet’s delegated powers.

 

The number of questions which may be asked by any councillor at any one meeting is limited to two (or one question with notice and a supplementary question at the meeting) and the time for questions will be limited to 30 minutes in total. As with questions at Council, any questions which remain unanswered at the end of this item will receive a written response.

 

Questions submitted prior to the agenda being despatched are shown below and will be the subject of a response from the appropriate Cabinet Member or such other councillor or officer as is determined by the Cabinet Member, and shall not be the subject of further debate at this meeting. Questions received after the despatch of the agenda, but before the deadline, will be shown on the Schedule of Addenda circulated at the meeting, together with any written response which is available at that time.

Councillor Roy Darke had given notice of the following question to the Cabinet Member for Finance & Property:

 

"On item 7, Financial Monitoring I notice that under Pooled Budgets (para 26)

that the overspend is currently running at nearly £5m. and that this current

overspend includes £2m carried forward from last year. Even when the PCT

element is taken into account the Council is heading for nearly £2m

overspend. What measures will the Cabinet Member be taking to take control

of this failure to meet the budget?"

 

Councillor Couchman replied:

 

"As Councillor Darke acknowledges the overspending which is the responsibility of the County Council is £1.827m. In the next Monthly Monitoring report, he will see that this overspending has fallen still further to £1.298m. All of this overspending relates to social care for adults with physical disabilities (the much larger element of the budget which relates to older people is currently showing that spend is in line with budget). This overspending on social care for adults with physical disabilities is not a reflection of a failure to control the budget but reflects an increase in the number of people who require care.

 

This includes students with physical disabilities who have come to study in

Oxford and a number of cases which have transferred across for social care

funding from the Primary Care Trust. An action plan has been developed

which is looking to find savings in the cost of care such as through the use of

supported living arrangements and challenging high cost placements. However, this will not eliminate the overspending which will need to be carried

forward into next year. The budget agreed yesterday allocates extra

resources to adults with physical disabilities to help manage the pressures

next year."

 

Councillor Jean Fooks had given notice of the following question to the Cabinet Member for Growth & Infrastructure:

 

"The proposals to build a Waste Recycling Centre at Kidlington, to cater for

the residual household waste from the whole county, and to close facilities at

Ardley, Dean, Stanford and Redbridge have generated much concern. Can

the Cabinet member reassure us that the district councils, Kidlington Parish

Council and the public will be properly consulted before any decision is taken

on these sites? Will a full environmental assessment be done on the possible

extra traffic generation they will cause?"

 

Councillor Hudspeth replied: “Yes.”

 

Supplementary: Councillor Fooks asked for information on the timetable.

 

Councillor Hudspeth replied that it would be over the Summer period and that full information on the consultation would be available.

 

Councillor Richard Stevens had given notice of the following two questions to the Cabinet Member for Adult Services:

 

Since the last Cabinet meeting on 25 January 2011, has the Cabinet

member been able to find any evidence of Oxfordshire benefiting from the £1

billion extra nationally in the Personal Social Services Grant, as announced in

the Coalition's Spending Review in October 2010?

 

Councillor Fatemian replied:

 

“It was stated at the last Cabinet, that the £1bn had been included in the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 16/11

The following requests to address the meeting had been agreed:

 

Item 6. Cllr Lorraine Lindsay-Gale, local member;

Andrew Churchill-Stone, Chair of Governors of Culham Parochial School,,

Kitson Thomas (Chair of Save Culham School Group) and

Chris Mills, a local resident.

 

Item 8. Cllr Anne Purse, Shadow Cabinet Member for Growth & Infrastructure

                        Cllr Charles Mathew. local member

                        Cllr Lorraine Lindsay-Gale, local member

 

Item 9.             Cllr Jenny Hannaby, Shadow Cabinet Member for Adult Services

 

Item 10.          Cllr Jenny Hannaby, Shadow Cabinet Member for Adult Services

 

Item 13.          Cllr Jean Fooks, Opposition Deputy Leader

Cabinet Member: Schools Improvement

Forward Plan Ref: 2011/007

Contact: Roy Leach, Strategic Lead – School Organisation & Planning Tel: (01865) 816458

 

Report by Director for Children, Young People & Families (CA6).

 

The viability of Culham Parochial Primary School has been called into question due to a combination of factors: inability of the governing body to recruit a headteacher, falling pupil roll and deficit budget.  Efforts have been made by the governing body, supported by the council and the Oxford Diocese, to address these issues but it has not been possible to put in place a viable recovery plan. Reluctantly, council officers, the Diocese and  governors in post at the start of the 2010-11 academic year, concluded that the school does not have a future and the council has undertaken a public consultation about a proposal to close the school with effect from the end of the current academic year. The report presents the outcomes of the consultation and describes the next steps required if effect is to be given to the proposal to close the school.

 

The Cabinet is RECOMMENDED to:

 

a)                 Consider the responses to the consultation; and

b)                Determine whether, at this stage, any of the alternatives to closure are sufficiently well developed to provide a robust assurance that the Council should continue to maintain the school on its current site; or

c)                 Determine whether any alternatives, whilst not yet providing sufficient assurance, nevertheless merit further development and request officers to work with their proposer(s) on these, with final version(s) to be submitted by the end of April; and

d)                 Determine whether to proceed with the publication of a statutory notice to close Culham Parochial School with effect from 31 August 2011.

 

The Cabinet considered a report (CA6) setting out the outcomes of the consultation about a proposal to close the school with effect from the end of the current academic year and describing the next steps required if effect is to be given to the proposal to close the school.

 

Andrew Churchill-Stone, Chair of Governors of Culham Parochial School, spoke in support of keeping the school open as a Local Authority School. Referring to the major difficulties previously identified he stated that as at 31 March 2001 there would be no deficit to carry forward, there was a reasonable expectation that a Headteacher would be appointed shortly and as a fall back position negotiations were underway with St Edmunds Catholic School about the possibility of a shared headship. In addition he believed that the school would be viable with 40 pupils. He asked cabinet to save a school that he believed was viable.

 

Responding to a question from Councillor Michael Waine, Mr Churchill Stone stated that the interviews for the Headteacher would be held on 1 March 2011.

 

Kitson Thomas, Chair of Save Culham School Group, commented that he had emailed all Cabinet members. The Group comprised a wide range of people from parents, parishioners, teachers and local church representatives, councillors and the local MP. He referred to the viability of the School and to various statistics that showed that there would be a rise in the local population. He referred to the pupil numbers that were confirmed and was confident that at least 38 pupils would be on roll in September 2011 if the School remained open.

 

Responding to a question about the impact of the European Free School application Mr Thomas stated that initially they were only looking at 2 year groups. He added that the application for the Culham Parochial Primary School to become a free school was meant to show their commitment to retaining a school in Culham and that they would much prefer it to remain as it was.

 

Chris Mills, a local resident, spoke in support of the School remaining open: the School had been the heart of the community for over 160 years. It educated villagers successfully and lifelong friendship were established. The School gave the village its roots; it was and remained a focus of community activity with space for pre-school and village meetings. He felt that the problem with pupil numbers was only recent and that talk of closure made the position more difficult. He asked that the village be given the help and security of a little more time that would enable the School to recover quickly.

 

Responding to a question from Councillor Judith Heathcoat Mr Mills confirmed that as a villager he did believe that there was a sustainable future for the School. Responding to a comment from Councillor Jim Couchman he acknowledged that first and foremost it was a school and that it was because it was an effective school that it was a focus for the community.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 18/11

Cabinet Member: Finance & Property

Forward Plan Ref: 2010/166

Contact: Kathy Wilcox, Principal Financial Manager Tel: (01865) 323981

 

Report by  Assistant Chief Executive & Chief Finance Officer (CA7).

 

This is the sixth financial monitoring report for the 2010/11 financial year and covers the period up to the end of December 2010.  Part 1 & 2 set out the Council's forecast position for the 2010/11 financial year and include projections for revenue, balances, reserves. The capital programme monitoring and capital programme review update is included at Part 3.

 

The Cabinet is RECOMMENDED to note the report and approve the virement requests as set out in annex 2a.

Cabinet considered the sixth financial monitoring report (CA7) for the 2010/11 financial year that covered the period up to the end of December 2010.  Part 1 & 2 set out the Council's forecast position for the 2010/11 financial year and included projections for revenue, balances, reserves. The capital programme monitoring and capital programme review update was included at Part 3.

 

The Cabinet Member for Finance & Property commented on areas of concern and individual Cabinet Members responded on action being taken.

 

RESOLVED:             to note the report and approve the virement requests as set out in annex 2a.

 

 

Cabinet Member: Growth & Infrastructure

Forward Plan Ref: 2010/181

Contact: Peter Day, Minerals & Waste Policy Team Leader Tel: (01865) 815544

 

Report by Head of Sustainable Development (CA8).

 

The Minerals and Waste Core Strategy will set out the vision, objectives, spatial strategy, core policies and implementation framework for the supply of minerals and management of waste in Oxfordshire.  The report summarises the findings of a local assessment of the requirement for aggregates supply produced by consultants for the County Council.  This includes locally derived figures for the levels of mineral supply that the Core Strategy should provide for, as an alternative to the top-down figures in the South East Plan.

 

The interim preferred strategy for mineral working agreed by Cabinet in October 2010 has been tested for deliverability using these supply levels against a preliminary assessment of potential sites.  This identifies that the Radley/Nuneham Courtenay area is unlikely to be deliverable and that the Sutton Courtenay area can only provide for part of the plan period to 2030.  The shortfall could not be met from additional capacity in the other interim strategy areas: Lower Windrush Valley; Eynsham/Cassington/Yarnton; and Caversham.  An additional strategy area should be identified in southern Oxfordshire.  Assessment indicates that, of the deliverable options available, the Cholsey area is less constrained and better located to serve local markets than the Clifton Hampden or Drayton St Leonard/Stadhampton areas.

 

The local assessment of aggregates supply requirements will be made available and comments invited from industry and other key stakeholders over the next two months.  A formal public consultation on the preferred minerals strategy, combined with a preferred waste strategy, will be undertaken in June/July 2011.

 

The Cabinet is RECOMMENDED to:

 

(a)                Adopt the locally derived figures for aggregates supply requirement in paragraphs 7 and 8 of the report as the basis for the County Council’s preferred spatial strategy approach for mineral working.

 

(b)                Agree the County Council’s preferred spatial strategy approach for mineral working for consultation is:

 

      i.               sand and gravel – concentration of working in existing areas of working, at Lower Windrush Valley, Eynsham/ Cassington/Yarnton, Sutton Courtenay, Cholsey and Caversham;

 

    ii.               soft sand – working in three existing areas: south east of Faringdon; Tubney/Marcham/Hinton Waldrist; and Duns Tew;

 

  iii.               crushed rock – working in three existing areas: north of Bicester to the east of the River Cherwell; south of the A40 near Burford; and south east of Faringdon.

 

(c)                 Agree that consultation on the preferred spatial strategy approach for mineral working be combined with consultation on a preferred waste spatial strategy, in June/July 2011.  

The Cabinet considered a report (CA8) that summarised the findings of a local assessment of the requirement for aggregates supply produced by consultants for the County Council.  This included locally derived figures for the levels of mineral supply that the Core Strategy should provide for, as an alternative to the top-down figures in the South East Plan.

 

The interim preferred strategy for mineral working agreed by Cabinet in October 2010 had been tested for deliverability using these supply levels against a preliminary assessment of potential sites. The report noted that the Minerals and Waste Plan Working Group had recommended that the strategy for sand and gravel should be amended by removal of the Radley/Nuneham Courtenay area and inclusion of the Cholsey area.

 

The local assessment of aggregates supply requirements will be made available and comments invited from industry and other key stakeholders over the next two months.  A formal public consultation on the preferred minerals strategy, combined with a preferred waste strategy, will be undertaken in June/July 2011.

 

Councillor Anne Purse, Shadow Cabinet Member for Growth & Infrastructure, commented that she had expressed reservations in November about the evidence base for the minerals strategy. There was now much more information and she was pleased to see the evidence supporting a lower figure. She now felt that the recommendations were more in line with other reports and pleased that thinking had caught up with her views.

 

Councillor Mathew, as a local Councillor for Eynsham stated that the area had provided the bulk of primary gravel in Oxfordshire and further afield for several years. He acknowledged the need for primary gravel but he asked for an equitable distribution and sustainability, with market driven pits close to the areas of need. He also asked for recognition of the cumulative effect on the local area and an acceptance of the heightened flood risk. He would wish to see infrastructure to match the development talking place and no more lakes permitted. There needed to be enforcement of planning conditions. He referred to the characteristics of the area including the Newbridge with a weight restriction, the toll bridge at Swinford and existing developments in the area.

 

He referred to the sites at Stonehenge that had been granted permission and Gill Mill likely to be granted. Together with other sites it would mean the further obliteration of archaeological sites in the area. Local residents had been very patient and he asked that Cabinet support a more sustainable solution for Oxfordshire.

 

Responding to a question from Councillor Hudspeth Councillor Mathew confirmed that of course the Gill Mill site was subject to a decision by Planning & Regulation Committee and would have to await any such decision.

 

Councillor Lorraine Lindsay-Gale welcomed the recent publication of the Atkins report and thanked officers and the Cabinet Member for Growth & Infrastructure for their commitment to the project. She welcomed the lower figure for aggregates supply which negated the need to go looking for large new sites. If successful the locally derived figure could be  ...  view the full minutes text for item 20/11

Cabinet Member: Adult Services

Forward Plan Ref: 2010/204

Contact: John Pearce, Service Manager, Strategic Commissioning Tel: (01865) 323619.

 

Report by Director for Social & Community Services (CA9).

 

The report recommends the award of the Carers' Support contract to the successful bidder Age UK ,Oxfordshire.

 

The selection of the provider followed the procurement process outlined in the attached report. Age UK, Oxfordshire demonstrated a strong bid based on both quality and price. The bid was strong generally on approach to delivery offering a good track record of local partnerships and delivery within Oxfordshire.

 

The award of this contract meets the obligations the Council agreed to undertake  following agreement to implement the Carers' Revised Commissioning Intentions Cabinet decision in July 2010. The current contracts with the three independent Carers' Centres will come to an end in April. The Centres are making their own decisions about their futures.  However, it appears all will initially be able to support a smooth handover to the proposed provider. Further work will be undertaken to ensure the implementation is completed satisfactorily.

 

The Carers' Support Contract ensures that community-based outreach and support will be available to carers throughout Oxfordshire. This support may be provided in three ways: as telephony and internet support, as face-to-face support with a support worker, or from peer groups of carers supporting each other. This is one part of the total provision of services available to carers. It is the key provision for those who do not otherwise qualify for support from other social and community services or health provision. The aim is to reach many more carers with support and assistance at an earlier point in their caring roles.

 

The Cabinet is RECOMMENDED to:

Award Age UK Oxfordshire the contract for this service for a period of 3 years, (with two annual options to extend) on the basis of having provided the most economically advantageous bid which meets our needs.

 

Cabinet considered a report (CA9) that  recommended the award of the Carers' Support contract to the successful bidder Age UK, Oxfordshire

Councillor Jenny Hannaby, Shadow Cabinet Member for Adult Services sought clarification over the tendering process and in particular the role played by the representative of Age UK on the evaluation panel. She also sought reassurance that the service provided would be properly monitored and scrutinised.

 

The Cabinet Member for Adult Services stated that the opposition group had been briefed at each stage. The report today was the end of an extremely rigorous procurement process. The work of carers was very much valued. Age UK had a long history of work in the County, were well respected and had a good track record. He was confident that they would be able to meet what was a very demanding contract. The Director for Social & Community Services clarified the procurement process. He commented that in the standard pre qualification questionnaire eight companies had been put through including Age UK, Oxfordshire but only four had tendered and this had not included Age UK, Oxfordshire. At tender evaluation stage none of the four had been suitable on the grounds of quality. At that point the Council had gone back to the other four and two had put in bids. The assessment process had been very clear and they had worked closely with procurement and legal services. The representative of Age UK had been part of the evaluation as the Acting Chief Executive of the Carers Forum. That person had not been involved in the preparation of the Age UK bid and the Director for Social & Community Services believed that that individual and Age UK, Oxfordshire had acted completely properly.

 

The Director for Social & Community Services undertook to report to Scrutiny if requested on the way in which the contract targets were to be monitored.

 

RESOLVED:             to award Age UK Oxfordshire the contract for this service for a period of 3 years, (with two annual options to extend) on the basis of having provided the most economically advantageous bid which meets our needs.

Cabinet Member: Adult Services

Forward Plan Ref: 2010/191

Contact: Maria Melbourne, Area Service Manager, Social Care for Adults Tel: (01865) 323275

 

Report by Director for Social & Community Services (CA10).

 

Stairlifts can be provided by a Disabled Facilities Grant that is means tested and available from the District Council Housing Department following an Occupational Therapist’s (OT) recommendation. Once installed the lift becomes the property of the individual. The County Council has no statutory duty to maintain the stairlifts, so whilst  Social and Community Care have become involved, the maintenance of these lifts remains the responsibility of the owner.

 

The County Council has had an arrangement in place for the last fifteen years to provide a service and maintenance contract for hoist and stair-lift equipment. This includes the provision of an emergency call out service when equipment breaks down.

 

One of the reasons this policy was put in place was to allow the lifts to be re-cycled and re-installed in other properties. This was discontinued approximately five years ago as it was no longer considered cost effective and the five District Councils no longer supported the arrangement.

 

This report addresses the current contractual arrangements to provide service, maintenance and repairs for Stairlifts, Through Floor (vertical) Lifts and Step Lifts by Social and Community Services. Proposals relate to the service provided for adults (over 18) with a physical disability or long term medical condition. No change is proposed for  people under 18 years old.

 

The report updates members on the outcome of the consultation exercise and seeks a decision regarding the ending of the above service provision.      

 

The Cabinet is RECOMMENDED to:

 

(a)       Consider the information provided by the Consultation and the options for the service

(b)       Agree Option 3 to end the service.

 

Cabinet considered a report (CA10) that set out the current contractual arrangements to provide service, maintenance and repairs for Stairlifts, Through Floor (vertical) Lifts and Step Lifts by Social and Community Services. The report updated members on the outcome of the consultation exercise and sought a decision regarding the ending of the service provision

Councillor Jenny Hannaby Shadow Cabinet Member for Adult Services, commented that historically this was a very complicated position between County and District. She queried who would pick up responsibility when lifts broke and sought assurance that maintenance could be part of the personal care package.

 

Responding to a query from Councillor Hudspeth about the position being taken by Vale of White Horse District Council Councillor Hannaby stated that it was her understanding that they would not take on existing contracts but would seek to get a longer warranty. It was confirmed that maintenance could be included in personal\ budgets should individuals wish it. It was noted that if a decision was taken to discontinue maintenance then all lifts would be serviced before maintenance was discontinued.

 

RESOLVED:             to:

 

(a)       Consider the information provided by the Consultation and the options for the service

(b)       Agree Option 3 to end the service.

Cabinet Member: Safer & Stronger Communities

Forward Plan Ref: 2010/143

Contact: Dave Etheridge, Chief Fire Officer Tel: (01865) 855205/Colin Thomas, Acting Deputy Chief Fire Officer Tel: (01865) 855206

 

Report by Chief Fire Officer (CA11).

 

This report proposes the projects to be included within the Fire Authority’s Integrated Risk Management (IRMP) Action Plan for the fiscal year 2011-12.  The proposals summarise those areas where the Service’s Senior Leadership Team (SLT) believe service improvements should be made.  To meet the requirements of the IRMP process each proposal is supported by evidence to validate their inclusion and justify their contribution to improved community engagement and community/fire-fighter safety.  Each proposal recognises the prevailing economic constraints.

 

The proposals for the 2011-12 Action Plan are as follows:

 

Project 1:

 

•               Permanent removal of the second appliance from Faringdon from the Oxfordshire Fire and Rescue Service (OFRS) fleet.
  

Project 2:

 

•               Implementation of the specialist appliance review of 2010/11.  (Continuation of 2010/11 IRMP project 2).

 

Project 3:

 

•               To review and enhance appropriate safeguarding measures throughout OFRS.

 

Project 4:

 

•               To design and implement a protection and prevention strategy enabling targeted activities to those most at risk.

 

Project 5:

 

•               To enhance the role of Retained Station Support Officers within their communities.     

           

Project 6:

 

•               Review the current provision of fire appliances to ensure operational resilience and value for money.  (Continuation of 2010/11 IRMP project 2).

 

 

These proposals were approved by the Cabinet Member and commented on by Safer and Stronger Communities Scrutiny Committee. They will be adopted in the final version of the IRMP Action Plan 2011-12, dependent upon the outcome of the consultation and Cabinet approval.  Each project will be subject to close monitoring, reviewed every quarter and reported to the Cabinet Member responsible for the Fire & Rescue Service.

 

The Cabinet  is RECOMMENDED to  approve the proposed projects to be included in the IRMP Action Plan 2011-12.

 

Cabinet considered a report (CA11) that proposed the projects to be included within the Fire Authority’s Integrated Risk Management (IRMP) Action Plan for the fiscal year 2011-12. The proposals summarised those areas where the Service’s Senior Leadership Team (SLT) believe service improvements should be made. To meet the requirements of the IRMP process each proposal was supported by evidence to validate their inclusion and justify their contribution to improved community engagement and community/fire-fighter safety. Each proposal recognised the prevailing economic constraints.

Colin Thomas, Deputy Chief Fire Officer responding to a query about the recruitment and retention of retained fire fighters indicated that although the total numbers were slightly reducing the quality of cover was targeted to times of need. This led to reducing levels of non-availability and increasing availability.

 

RESOLVED:             to  approve the proposed projects to be included in the IRMP Action Plan 2011-12.

Cabinet Member: Schools Improvement

Forward Plan Ref: 2010/143

Contact: Allyson Milward, Service Manager - School Organisation and Planning Tel: (01865) 816447

Report by Director for Children, Young People & Families (CA12).

 

St Edburg’s CE (A) Primary School has a published admission number of 30 children. The current age range is 4-11 years.  The proposal is directly related to the proposed development of 1585 houses at SW Bicester, now known as Kingsmere, development.  A previous consultation exercise was undertaken by Governors in 2007 when it was believed the new SW Bicester development was about to commence.  That consultation was in favour of the proposal to lower the age range and expand the school at the same time as relocating it to the new site to serve that new community.  The proposed development did not commence as a direct result of the slowdown in the economy and therefore no statutory notice to implement the outcomes of the consultation was made.  Under the provisions of the Education and Inspections Act 2006 (EIA 2006) such consultation exercises are only valid for a period of three years.  The development has now commenced at a slower rate and it is anticipated that a new school will be needed as originally intended and provided for in the infrastructure agreements for the site.  The first houses are likely to be ready for occupation from May 2011. 

 

 The Governors of St Edburg’s CE (A) Primary school have completed a further consultation exercise on a similar proposal and the outcomes are set out in the report. 

 

For September 2011 the school’s admission number has been published as 30 but the school is not currently full and will have space to accommodate the children generated from the first phase of development on the site.  This is seen as essential so that the new community has clear continuity of education provision as early as possible.  Current pupils would be guaranteed places in the new school.  However, once the new school is available it will serve the new community.  The part of Bicester town currently served by this school will be divided between other schools in the town.  Further consultation exercises to vary catchment areas will need to be brought forward by the Authority in due course.  These will take into account all the large developments proposed in and around Bicester to 2026. 

 

Funding for the new school buildings has been secured by the authority as part of infrastructure payments to be made by the developer (S.106 contributions).  One of the key ‘triggers’ for the release of the site for the school and the infrastructure payments is the completion of the statutory procedures required by the EIA 2006.  It is anticipated that the proceeds of the sale of the existing site will be used to fund any necessary expansions to provision in existing schools as a result of this proposal.  Brookside Primary school has already been expanded through forward funding by the Authority to support the initial impacts of this  ...  view the full agenda text for item 24/11

Cabinet Member: Deputy Leader

Forward Plan Ref: 2010/167

Contact: Sue Corrigan, Strategic HR Manager Tel: (01865) 810280

 

Report by Head of Human Resources (CA13).

 

This report gives an update on activity since 31 March 2010.  It gives details of the agreed establishment figure at 31 December 2010 in terms of Full Time Equivalents, together with the detailed staffing position at 31 December 2010. These are shown in the report by directorate and service area.

The report also provides information on current activity and in addition there is information on grant funded posts and those vacancies which are being covered by agency staff and at what cost.

The Cabinet is RECOMMENDED to:

 

(a)              note the report

 

(b)              confirm that the Establishment Review continues to meet requirements in reporting and managing staffing numbers.

 

Cabinet considered a report (CA13) that gave an update on activity since 31 March 2010, detailing the agreed establishment figure at 31 December 2010 in terms of Full Time Equivalents, together with the detailed staffing position at 31 December 2010. These were shown in the report by directorate and service area. The report also provided information on current activity and in addition there was information on grant funded posts and those vacancies which were being covered by agency staff and at what cost.

 

Councillor Zoe Patrick Opposition Leader noted that posts and people were being cut. The total number of people employed was in the report but she asked for information on the change in numbers from 31 March 2010. The figures showed that there were 295 FTE down but she queried how many people this represented. Referring to paragraph 8 of the report Councillor Patrick expressed concern at the moratorium on job evaluation and the impact on jobs that were changed with an increase and duties and responsibilities but with no review of the grade for the job.

 

The Deputy Leader commented that figures were always shown as full time equivalents. The moratorium was on the green book evaluation scheme. Sue Corrigan added that structure change and job changes would still be taken into account. She undertook to send Councillor Patrick details on the head count.

 

RESOLVED:                        to:

 

(a)               note the report; and

 

(b)               confirm that the Establishment Review continues to meet requirements in reporting and managing staffing numbers.

 

Cabinet Member: All

Contact Officer: Sue Whitehead, Committee Services Manager (01865 810262)

 

The Cabinet Procedure Rules provide that the business of each meeting at the Cabinet is to include “updating of the Forward Plan and proposals for business to be conducted at the following meeting”.   Items from the Forward Plan for the immediately forthcoming meetings of the Cabinet appear in the Schedule at CA14.  This includes any updated information relating to the business for those meetings that has already been identified for inclusion in the next Forward Plan update.

 

The Schedule is for noting, but Cabinet Members may also wish to take this opportunity to identify any further changes they would wish to be incorporated in the next Forward Plan update.

 

The Cabinet is RECOMMENDED to note the items currently identified for forthcoming meetings.

 

 

The Cabinet considered a list of items (CA14) for the immediately forthcoming meetings of the Cabinet together with changes and additions set out in the schedule of addenda.

 

RESOLVED:                        to note the items currently identified for forthcoming meetings.