Agenda item

LIST OF BACKGROUND PAPERS AS REQUIRED BY LAW

(Papers relied on to write the report, which do not contain exempt information and which are not published elsewhere)

Contact Officer, telephone number and email:

Karen Hill, Assistant Director of People Services, 01263 516183, karen.hill@north-norfolk.gov.uk

Cllr E Seward – Deputy Leader introduced the report and informed Members that the restructure aligned with the use of housing reserves to enhance the delivery of services. He added that this would strengthen the services provided to residents in need of housing assistance and disabled facilities grants. It was noted that the additional posts were not within the base budget, and would therefore be fixed-term positions, that would help to generate income via grant funding opportunities.

Question and Discussion

       i.          The Chairman noted that he had shared a range of questions posed to the CE via email in advance of the meeting, with answers provided by the ADPS.

      ii.          Cllr C Cushing stated that he had concerns regarding the restructure as a substantial request for additional resource had been made, whilst quarterly performance reports indicated that there were no issues that required additional resource. He added that claims made regarding the potential for generating income had not been supported with data, and overall he felt that an additional layer of management would not generate efficiencies. Cllr E Seward replied that approximately £160k of funding was for existing posts that was pre-planned expenditure, which meant that only £486k would be spent on new posts, as opposed £700k. He added that when combined with the use of housing reserves, only £1 in £4 of the proposed spend would be for staffing costs. It was noted that the Housing Team also provided a complex service that required careful management and support to deliver services.

     iii.          The ADPS stated that a key reason for introducing Team Leader posts over more officer level posts was to provide an opportunity for existing team members to step-up on a fixed-term basis to provide a better staff to team leader ratio. She added that HR had been consulted on improving this balance, which would allow managers more time to focus on key tasks. In relation to performance, it was reported that the additional resource would allow officers to move from crisis management to prevention, which would be a key focus following the restructure. The ADPS stated that the Pandemic had been a very difficult time for residents in need of assistance from the Housing Team, and it was therefore appropriate to use reserves and funding provided by Central Government to tackle the additional burdens placed on the Council.

    iv.          Cllr N Lloyd referred to rising fuel and energy costs and stated that fuel poverty was an increasing risk to residents that the Energy Officer would be well placed to address.

      v.          Cllr C Cushing noted that metrics on the officer to management ratio had not been included in the report, and asked whether this information was available. The ADPS replied that the ratio would be approximately six officers to one team leader. Cllr C Cushing said that he had seen little information on how processes would be improved, and asked what would happen to officers once fixed-term funding came to an end and whether any aspect of the decision taken by Cabinet had been actioned. The ADPS replied that the management to officer ratio would be correct for the services provided, taking into account the nature of the work. She added that any officers that stepped-up into the posts would have a substantive post to return to at the end of the fixed-term. It was suggested that any additional Government funding received could provide an opportunity to continue the posts, if successful. The ADPS stated that none of the decisions had been actioned, though preparations had been made. In response to a further question from Cllr C Cushing, it was suggested that the first action following approval would be to begin the recruitment process.

    vi.          Cllr H Blathwayt stated that funding to support those in desperate need of housing assistance was crucial, and asked whether officers were confident that the restructure would help improve services. The ADPS replied that People Services cared deeply about helping residents in need, and was confident that the restructure would help to move to a system of prevention rather than crisis management.

   vii.          Cllr V Holliday stated that she expected a more outcome focused approach with supporting data, and suggested that the outcomes that were included lacked ambition. She referred to risks in the Outturn report relating to temporary accommodation, the housing benefits subsidy and business rates retention, and asked whether it would be prudent to consider what resource would be required to manage these risks. The ADPS replied that the Council had significant reserves to mitigate these risks, and suggested that the opportunity to move to a preventative strategy would significantly reduce the risk of relying on expensive temporary accommodation and making housing benefit subsidy payments.

  viii.          Cllr V Gay noted that the work of People Services was often complex and required significant resource to support residents. She added that the restructure had been given careful consideration, and performance would be regularly reported to the Committee. It was noted that prevention and integration were key aspects of the County’s Health and Wellbeing Strategy, and it was important to support this.

    ix.          Cllr S Penfold stated that it was important to focus on service improvement with targeted investment to help residents, and noted that he supported the proposals.

      x.          Cllr T Adams stated that with growing demand, it was important that the Council was ready to adapt and respond to these demands, and the restructure provided that opportunity. He added that he would hope to see both quantitative and qualitative data of how the service was performing in the months ahead. Cllr T Adams noted that the Rough Sleeping Coordinator post had been effective and asked whether additional Government funding would be available  to continue this post in the future. The ADPS replied that funding was announced on an annual basis, and the level of uncertainty meant that the post had to be run on a fixed-term basis, with the current post running to March 2022. She added that this funding was not covered within the report, though it could provide an opportunity for people in these posts to consider those identified within the report. It was noted that there were still rough sleepers that chose not to move into temporary accommodation, though the Rough Sleeping Coordinator continued their efforts to support these individuals. The HOM said that she hoped that RSI year five funding would be made available, which could fund the continuation of the rough sleeper post. The DFC added that the Rough Sleeping Coordinator was on a secondment, and would have a substantive post to return to, should further funding not be available. He added that there was potential to adapt other posts to ensure that this work was not lost, if funding was stopped. It was noted that any further funding would have to be bid for, and the restructure would allow managers more time to pursue this.

    xi.          Cllr L Withington stated that the Council should not view itself in isolation from other public service providers, and it was right to invest in services that would benefit residents.

   xii.          Cllr P Heinrich stated that housing difficulties were some of the most complex issues addressed by the Council, which justified the need for funding to adequately support residents in need.

  xiii.          The recommendation was proposed by Cllr H Blathwayt and seconded by Cllr A Brown.

RESOLVED

1.     To endorse the use of uncommitted fee income and reserves to fund the proposed additional posts within for the revised ‘People Services’ service grouping and to earmark the uncommitted fee income and the required level of reserves to support the funding of the structure for the next 2 years.