Chair - Warwickshire County Council

Minutes of the Meeting of Warwickshire County Council held on 25 February 2014 Present: Councillor Dave Shilton (Chair) Councillors John Appleton, John Beaumont, Sarah Boad, Mike Brain, Peter Butlin, Les Caborn, Richard Chattaway, Jonathan Chilvers, Jeff Clarke, Alan Cockburn, Jose Compton, Yousef Dahmash, Corinne Davies, Nicola Davies, Neil Dirveiks, Sara Doughty, Peter Fowler, Jenny Fradgley, Bill Gifford, Mike Gittus, Brian Hawkes, Colin Hayfield, Martin Heatley, Bob Hicks, John Holland, John Horner, Julie Jackson, Bernard Kirton, Keith Kondakor, Joan Lea, Keith Lloyd, Phillip Morris-Jones, Peter Morson, Brian Moss, Bill Olner, Kate Rolfe, Maggie O’Rourke, Dave Parsons, Mike Perry, Caroline Phillips, Wallace Redford, Clive Rickhards, Howard Roberts, Jerry Roodhouse, Chris Saint, Izzi Seccombe, Jenny St. John, Bob Stevens, June Tandy, Heather Timms, Angela Warner, Alan Webb, Mary Webb, Matt Western, John Whitehouse and Chris Williams.

1.

General (1)

Apologies for absence Apologies for absence were submitted on behalf of Councillor Richard Dodd, Philip Johnson, Kam Kaur and Ann McLauchlan. Councillor Martin Heatley gave his apologies for the afternoon (item 3 onwards).

(2)

Members’ Disclosures of Pecuniary and Non-Pecuniary Interests None

(3)

Minutes Councillor Richard Chattaway, Deputy Leader of the Labour Group, moved that the minutes be amended as paragraph 5.7 of the final tabled budget proposals had been omitted from the minutes. This amendment was seconded by Councillor Izzi Seccombe, Leader of the Council. Resolved That the minutes of the meeting held on 6 February 2014 be approved as a correct record, subject to the addition of the following as paragraph 5.7 (and renumbering of subsequent paragraphs): “5.7

Corporate Board are asked to bring forward during 2015/16 a business case for the delivery of the libraries savings target.”

1

(4)

Chairman’s Announcements Welcome to Councillor John Appleton The Chair welcomed Councillor Appleton to the meeting and expressed the Council’s condolences for his sad loss. Councillor Appleton thanked members and staff for their cards and kind messages. Death of former County Councillor Lionel Franklyn The Chair reported that former councillor Lionel Franklyn had died on 31 January. Lionel Franklyn had served on the County Council between 1997 and 2001 and served on the Education Committee. Lionel was very well known in Rugby where he had served on the Borough Council since 1979 and had been mayor for 2004/05. The Council stood in silent tribute to Lionel Franklyn. Emergency Services Response to Flooding The Chair, on behalf of Council, expressed the Council’s appreciation to staff and all local authority partners for their work on flood prevention that had helped Warwickshire to escape the worst consequences of the recent flooding. Fire in Leamington Spa The Chair reported that on 20 February the Fire and Rescue Service had attended a fire in a flat within a converted Edwardian Hotel in Leamington Spa. A total of nine fire appliances and 50 fire fighters attended the fire. It had been a difficult and protracted incident with fire fighters remaining on the scene for over 24 hours. The Chair agreed to relay the Council’s appreciation to the fire fighters who had worked extremely hard in arduous conditions. Chairman’s Open Evening – Saturday 12 April The Chair announced that he would be hosting an open evening on the evening of Saturday 12 April.

2.

Public Interest Debate – Unitary Local Government in Warwickshire The Chair welcomed the public to the debate and outlined the procedure. This minute summarises the points made by the proposers of the motion and amendments and sets out the key points that arose in the debate. A summary of the points made by each speaker is set out in Appendix A to these minutes.

2

A

Councillor Izzi Seccombe, Leader of the Council, presented the following motion for debate and was seconded by Councillor Alan Cockburn: “This Council believes that in facing the considerable financial challenges of the last and current Comprehensive Spending Review, Local Government has responded with innovation by transforming services and controlling financial expenditure responsibly. The Council believes that any further reduction in Government Grant to local authorities will have so great an impact on the ability to deliver safe and quality services that consideration should be given to a re-evaluation of the structure of Local Government and a move from a two tier system of principal councils to Unitary Local Government. Consequently, the Council believes that it is in the public interest to explore the opportunities of Unitary Local Government. It will engage with members of the public, other public sector bodies, businesses, the voluntary sector and Central Government to develop ideas around this way of working. It will provide evidence based analysis so that the people of Warwickshire can form their own views about unitary solutions” Councillor Izzi Seccombe drew attention to the following issues: Local Government Financial position: Warwickshire has had two grant settlements that have led the Council to reduce expenditure, first by £66m and this year by setting a budget that includes savings of £92m over the next four years. The next Government will still have the challenge of public sector deficit and local government will continue to have to share in reducing the national debt. Future financial and service pressures: Warwickshire has managed its reduced settlement by streamlining services and reducing back room duplication and will continue to modernise. However, if there is a further difficult settlement, then it will be necessary to question what services to cease. This will be against a background of growing pressures such as the increasing ageing population and uncertainties such as the Care Bill. Reason for current debate During the public conversations held last Autumn, and at other times, people asked if and when the Council would look at its governance arrangements and the structures within Warwickshire. The current coalition Government has made it clear that there will be no change in structure of local government within this cycle without support from all parties involved and concerns expressed by District and Borough councils is recognised. However, there is no intention of putting forward options for one form of structure over another at this meeting and there is no business or financial case to discuss at this point. This is a proposal to open up the debate.

3

Considerations There is a need to consider improved decision making and speed up responses by not having, for example, six planning authorities, six waste departments and support services - HR, Finance, law and governance etc. The expenditure across councils in Warwickshire is over £1bn and there are 272 councillor roles for a population of 550k. Birmingham City Council spends £3.5bn, with 120 councillors and a population twice our size. It should be possible to design a structure that is lean in the core with strong local support for members with local budgets and enhanced powers for town and parish councils. This could strengthen communities and confidence in local government. B

Councillor June Tandy, Leader of the Labour Group, moved the following amendment and was seconded by Councillor Bill Olner: “That this Council takes no further action on moving toward becoming a Unitary Authority until such time as all partners in the public and private sectors have been consulted and have been informed of both positive and negative elements of one Warwickshire Unitary Authority, two Unitary Authorities on the basis of North and South Unitary Authorities, or any other valid proposal. At the point when all partners show they are in full agreement then this Council will decide if it wishes to commit more resources, prior to any legislation being put into place.” Councillor June Tandy expressed the following views in presenting her amendment: •

The press release and the report for this meeting had not been shared with her as Group Leader prior to publication and she did not wish to be associated with them.

•

The report was biased towards a single unitary authority for the whole of Warwickshire, there being many positives listed for a single unitary authority compared to the number of negative points listed for other models.

•

Only 14 of the 108 people who responded to the ‘Let’s Talk’ website consultation mentioned closer working with the public sector and/or suggested Warwickshire becomes a unitary authority. In addition she had not been provided with any recorded evidence of the proposal being raised at the Leader’s road shows or elsewhere.

•

Leaders and Deputies of Warwickshire’s District and Borough Councils have expressed opposition.

•

The savings proposals for a single unitary authority are stated to be around £30 a year for a Band D property, which is not a lot in these times of food banks and the other financial pressures on people.

•

Unless there is legislation, unitary government will not be possible without agreement from the partners concerned. It appears there will not be support from partners and therefore the work proposed would be time consuming and a waste of resources. 4

C

Key themes emerging from the debate A full debate followed (as set out in Appendix A). The key points are summarised below: Arguments in support of exploring unitary options •

Economic: There is a need to explore options that will help address the economic challenges facing the Council and the public sector generally. Unitary authorities provide economy of scale and reduction of costs through removal of duplication of functions (e.g. support services such as HR and IT). They have more buying power and are likely to be more resilient to economic pressures.

•

Efficiency and effectiveness: There would be quicker decision making through reduced political bureaucracy, greater service integration and there being one point of access for public on issues that may otherwise have required dealing with two authorities.

•

Improved communication and responsiveness: The public will know who to go to for resolution of issues. They need only contact one councillor in a unitary rather than both county and district councillor for resolution of issues. Those county councillors who are currently district councillors in the same area find having a dual role helpful. This would be easier in a unitary.

•

Local decision making: The role of parish and town councils could be enhanced in a unitary model. The use of Area Boards, groupings of local councils, or something similar, could be explored.

•

Community engagement: There is a potential to produce a model that reengages with the electorate and improved community leadership role of councillors at grass roots level.

•

If two or more unitary authorities are created, it would still be possible to have joint working on some services (e.g. waste).

Arguments against •

Democratic deficit: Unitary government would reduce democratic representation and remove the variety of voices/options provided through the two tier system. Councillors will have doubling of workload making the role prohibitive for some.

•

Remoteness: A unitary authority will be remote from the public and having fewer authorities will mean fewer voices of local areas will be heard.

•

Economic: There is a cost in bringing about the change. Savings are not guaranteed and any savings made from becoming a unitary may be returned to Government (e.g. by reduced grant). There could be an economic impact on small businesses unless something is put in place to ensure they are able to compete in procurement exercises. There could be a detrimental impact if a 5

two unitary model of north and south is chosen as it could lead to a widening of the socio-economic gap. •

Efficiency and effectiveness: It is already possible to do joint working and collaboration in current structure so there is no need to change. It is unlikely that, whatever model is chosen, it will be possible to be coterminous with all public sector bodies. The public should be able to be directed to the right person/service whichever tier they contact so structural change is not necessary.

Questions to consider

D

•

What will be the role of parish and town councils? Is it be possible to increase their responsibilities?

•

If there are two unitaries or more, joint arrangements between the unitaries may still be preferable for some services (e.g. waste).

•

Would a two unitary (north and south) model increase the socio-economic divide or allow better local autonomy?

•

Is it possible/desirable to have a model that increases coterminosity of boundaries with other public services (e.g. NHS) and reflects the connectivity between areas.

Response to debate and concluding comments from movers of proposal/amendments. Councillor June Tandy made the following points in response to the debate: •

It is not practicable to parish a highly populated urban area. The Area Committees provided some local decision making powers but they were abolished and replaced by community forums that do not have power.

•

A critical question is whether town and parish councils will be given powers under a unitary authority?

•

All councils are under financial strain and there is no reason to consider that will change under a unitary council. The government will decide how much the council should have and this will not necessarily be what it needs or deserves.

•

A referendum will not enable a unitary authority to be created whilst there is not the support of district and borough councils. If there is opposition then unitary government cannot go forward without legislation.

•

The debate can still go forward but a lot of money should not be spent on it until the Council knows whether it has to do it or not.

6

Councillor Izzi Seccombe made the following points in response to the debate: •

More than 50% of the council sit on both the County Council and on a District or Borough Council and so they are already doing the job of a unitary councillor.

•

This is an opportunity to drive forward a single council that will be more relevant, vibrant, that responds better, has quicker decision making, and achieves economies of scale.

•

This is an opportunity to re-engage with the electorate and make local government relevant with unitary councillors working through their communities to shape local communities.

•

The Council can look at the Wiltshire model and others but we want Warwickshire to design what is relevant for Warwickshire. The people of Warwickshire must be part of that. This will take us forward as a progressive Council and one that people will turn out and vote for.

•

This is the start of the opening up of the discussion.

VOTE Amendment moved by Councillor June Tandy: 20 for, 36 against. The amendment was LOST. The motion moved by Councillor Izzi Seccombe: 44 for, 7 against, 4 abstentions. The motion was AGREED as set out below. “This Council believes that in facing the considerable financial challenges of the last and current Comprehensive Spending Review, Local Government has responded with innovation by transforming services and controlling financial expenditure responsibly. The Council believes that any further reduction in Government Grant to local authorities will have so great an impact on the ability to deliver safe and quality services that consideration should be given to a re-evaluation of the structure of Local Government and a move from a two tier system of principal councils to Unitary Local Government. Consequently, the Council believes that it is in the public interest to explore the opportunities of Unitary Local Government. It will engage with members of the public, other public sector bodies, businesses, the voluntary sector and Central Government to develop ideas around this way of working. It will provide evidence based analysis so that the people of Warwickshire can form their own views about unitary solutions” The meeting adjourned at 1.00 pm and reconvened at 2.30 pm. 7

2.

Warwickshire County Council “Shaping the Future” One Organisational Plan 2014-2018

A

Councillor Izzi Seccombe, Leader of the Council, moved the following proposal and was seconded by Councillor Alan Cockburn: “That the Council approves the One Organisational Plan 2014-18 as set out at Appendix B to these minutes”. Councillor Izzi Seccombe reminded Council that this had been deferred from the Council meeting on 6 February and was a revised plan following discussions with other groups. Councillor Seccombe thanked David Carter, Strategic Director of Resources, as well as Phil Evans and his team for the work in developing the Plan.

B

Councillor Richard Chattaway, Deputy Leader of the Labour Group, moved the following proposal and was seconded by Councillor June Tandy: “That the Council approves the One Organisational Plan 2014-18 as set out at Appendix C to these minutes.” Councillor Richard Chattaway drew attention to the amendments that the Labour Group wished to see in the Plan, and in particular the emphasis on closing the gap on health inequalities, ensuring services are targeted to help those residents and communities who most need support and that universal services are accessible on an equal and fair basis. The following points were raised in the debate: Councillor Jerry Roodhouse, Leader of the Liberal Democrat Group, thanked those who had taken part in discussions to arrive at the revised Plan presented by Councillor Izzi Seccombe which he considered to be more sharply focused and in particular welcomed the amendments that included reference to young people, the voluntary sector and local decision making. Councillor Colin Hayfield, Cabinet Portfolio Holder for Customers, welcomed the revised Plan and suggested that the Overview and Scrutiny Committees look at various areas in the Plan and ensure that they are taken forward. Councillor Keith Kondakor, Leader of the Green Group, recognised there were good aims in both Plans but would like more emphasis on tackling the digital divide and in improving transport to give better access to services (e.g. for education). Councillor Jonathan Chilvers welcomed the proposal to strengthen local decision making in the Plan proposed by Councillor Izzi Seccombe but considered that the it should also include the references to the targeting of services and treating customers fairly as set out in the Labour amendment. Councillor Izzi Seccombe advised the meeting that the Plan was intended for staff and partners and that there would be an operational plan behind this. She added that she considered the Labour amendment unnecessary as services would be targeted to those in need and would be evidence based. 8

VOTE The amendment proposed by Councillor Richard Chattaway at Appendix C was put to the vote and was LOST the vote being 24 for and 30 against. The proposal put by Councillor Izzi Seccombe at Appendix B was put to the vote and was AGREED, the vote being 33 for and 2 against. Resolved That the One Organisational Plan 2014-18 as set out at Appendix B to the minutes be approved.

4.

Warwickshire Electoral Boundary Review – Council Size

A

Councillor June Tandy, Chair of the Council’s Boundary Review Working Group, presented the Working Group’s proposed submission to the Local Government Boundary Commission that proposed a Council size of 57. Councillor Bob Stevens seconded the proposal. It was noted that the review had not been requested by the Council but that the Boundary Commission had decided to undertake the review as it considered there to be a significant imbalance in electoral equality between the current divisions in Warwickshire.

B

Councillor Keith Kondakor, Leader of the Green Group, moved the following amendment, and was seconded by Councillor Jonathan Chilvers: “That the Council put forward a council size of 61 to the Local Government Boundary Commission”. Councillor Keith Kondakor expressed the view that a Council of 61 would result in removal of just one seat in North Warwickshire that would enable a more even level of representation across Warwickshire and be the least disruptive for the public. The cost of 61 compared to 57 is not materially different. Councillor Jerry Roodhouse, Leader of the Liberal Democrat Group and member of the Working Group, explained that the options on size had been fully debated by the Working Group and the majority view was that 57 was the most appropriate for the Council. Councillor Bob Stevens, a member of the Working Group, advised that a council size of 57 (taking one seat from each district area) would result in each member representing around 7900 which the Group had concluded was a reasonable number taking into account the roles of councillors and was similar to other comparable county councils.

9

VOTE The amendment proposed by Councillor Keith Kondakor at B above was put to the vote and was LOST, the vote being 4 for and more against (with 2 abstentions). The proposal put forward by Councillor June Tandy at A above was put to the vote and was CARRIED, the vote being 51 for, two against and two abstentions. Resolved That the Council approve the submission to the Local Government Boundary Commission as set out in the report from the Working Group.

5.

Operational Assessment and Fire Peer Challenge – Warwickshire Fire and Rescue Authority. Councillor Les Caborn, Cabinet Portfolio Holder for Community Safety, presented the final report from the Fire Peer Challenge Review undertaken in Warwickshire in November 2013 and proposed the acceptance of its recommendations. Councillor Wallace Redford seconded the proposal. The report was the result of a very thorough review by a team led by David Etheridge, Chief Fire Officer of the Oxfordshire Fire and Rescue Service. This was the first review since the tragedy of the Atherstone Fire and was an appropriate time for this and the results demonstrate how the service has moved on. Councillor Caborn congratulated the Fire and Rescue service for the positive report which included areas of high performance as well as three areas of notable practice across the whole of the country and the good relations with staff. The report does, however, identify 44 ‘areas to explore’, including that Communities Overview and Scrutiny take a leading role in overview service improvement and the recommendations that come forward from this paper. A draft action plan was being drafted and would be put to the Overview and Scrutiny Committee. Another key recommendation concerned looking at resources and the Council has agreed a budget for the next four years and 104 of the original 120 items in the service improvement plan have been completed. The action plan deals with the remaining 16 recommendations and brings together the 44 areas in the peer review have been grouped into 15-20 high level actions. Councillor Sarah Boad, Deputy Leader of the Liberal Democrat Group, welcomed this positive report but was disappointed that the action plan was not yet available and sought assurance that a group of members be created to focus on this. Councillor Richard Chattaway, Chair of the Communities Overview and Scrutiny Committee, welcomed the positive findings of the report and agreed that this should be celebrated. He added that the next step would be to address the 44 areas and make the service even better and that the Committee would be focusing on ensuring the action plan is robust and would also look in detail that the budget is robust enough to deliver the action plan. 10

Councillor Caborn, in response to points raised in debate, assured the Council that the action plan would be circulated in advance of the Communities Overview and Scrutiny Committee meeting and that the success of the Small Fires Unit should be looked at to see how the approach may be employed elsewhere. He also recognised the importance of preventative work with regard to road traffic accidents and acknowledged the work done in schools. The recommendations were put to the vote and accepted unanimously. Resolved That the Council notes the strengths recorded in the final report from the Fire Peer Challenge Review and approves the development of an action plan, based on addressing the ‘areas to explore’ as summarised at Appendix 2 of the report.

6.

Petition Against the High Speed Rail (London-West Midlands) Bill Councillor Bob Stevens, Cabinet Portfolio Holder for Health, presented a report proposing that the Council submit a petition to parliament that puts forward arguments for changes to the Bill with a view to reducing any adverse effects of the railway and seeking mitigation or compensation measures. Councillor Stevens moved the recommendations in the report and was seconded. During the debate members repeated the concerns and opposition to the HS2 that had been put forward at previous meetings but also recognised that the proposal to petition was about ensuring the best outcome for the people who would be affected by HS2, regardless of whether they were supportive of the railway in principle. Following a full debate, the proposition was put to the vote and was CARRIED with all present voting for the proposal, aside from two abstentions.

Resolved (1) That the Council resolves under the provisions of Section 239 of the Local Government Act 1972 that it is expedient for the Council to oppose the High Speed Rail (London-West Midlands) Bill deposited in the Session of Parliament 2013-14. (2) That the Strategic Director of Resources, in consultation with the Portfolio Holder for Health, is authorised to determine the content of the Petition and to take all such other steps as he thinks fit to carry the foregoing resolution into effect, including the authorisation of Sharpe Pritchard (Parliamentary Agents) to sign the Petition of the Council against the Bill.

11

7.

Notice of Motion – Library Cards for Primary School Aged Children Councillor Jenny St John moved the following proposal and was seconded by Councillor John Beaumont: "This Council is of the opinion that using a public library encourages reading and literacy skills and that all Warwickshire's children of primary school age should be encouraged to join the county library service. This Council notes research by the National Literacy Trust indicating that 'nearly half of young people do not use their public library, but that public library use is strongly correlated with positive outcomes for reading attitudes, motivation, and behaviour and school attainment, and non-library use with negative outcomes.' Given more than half young people surveyed who say they do not use a public library, indicate this is because 'my family doesn't go', this Council believes a library card should be issued to every child of primary school age, along with a personal invitation to attend a local library with their family to have the card activated and choose some books. This Council resolves to request officers to develop a scheme to provide all Warwickshire's children of primary school age with a universal library card at the earliest opportunity." In proposing her motion, Councillor Jenny St John drew attention to the benefits of library use for children and families. In particular there is a clear link between public library use and school attainment as those children who attend libraries are more than twice as likely to read above their reading level. The modern library also provides access to a range of items and on-line information and this now includes the ability to download e-books from home. Councillor St John explained that the provision of a library card through schools would help to promote the benefits of the service to those who may not be library members themselves and would be a proactive scheme, following on from initiatives such as the Bookstart Scheme. Councillor John Beaumont referred to a recent event that took place in Bulkington Community Library which 180 children from a local infant school attended and included a talk on how to use a library. The proposed library card scheme would build on this. Councillor Colin Hayfield, Cabinet Portfolio Holder for Customers, gave assurance that the cost would be met from within existing library service budgets and expressed his support for the motion. The proposal was put to the vote and was agreed unanimously.

12

8.

Member Question Time (1) Milby School, Nuneaton Councillor Dave Parsons asked Councillor Heather TImms, Cabinet Portfolio Holder for Children and Schools what her view was since Milby School’s appeal against its Ofsted result had been rejected and whether this would impact on the capital improvement plans. Councillor Heather Timms replied that the Council had supported the appeal from Milby School and officers are working with them on their improvement plan. She added that the funding for the capital project at the school was through the usual allocation based on space etc. and was not being funded from the DfE Basic Need Funding. Therefore the capital work should not be affected by the change of status. (2) Hinckley Road, Nuneaton Councillor Keith Kondakor asked Councillor Peter Butlin, Cabinet Portfolio Holder for Transport and Highways, why the pedestrian crossing had been removed with no indication that a new one was going to be installed and why there had been a delay between the removal of one and installation of a new one, leaving pedestrians without a safe form of crossing for a period of two weeks. Councillor Peter Butlin replied that he would address the poor communication and would find out why there was a gap between removal and replacement. (3) Library Savings Targets Councillor Richard Chattaway asked Councillor Colin Hayfield, Cabinet Portfolio Holder for Customers, whether he would give a categorical guarantee that the library service savings target will not result in the closure of any library or transfer of a library to community status. Councillor Colin Hayfield replied that the intention behind the reduction in the savings target was so that there would not have to be any library closures. It would, however, be wrong to give a categorical assurance as we do not know what will happen in the future.

9.

Items of urgent business There were no other items of urgent business. The Council rose at 4.20 pm. …………………………… Chair

13

Meeting of County Council – 25 February 2014

Minute 2- Appendix A

Public Interest Debate – Unitary Local Government in Warwickshire The following sets out the key points made by speakers. These are listed in the order taken at the meeting: A. B. C. D.

Mover of proposal and mover of amendment First hour of speeches from county councillors Public speakers Last hour of speeches from county councillors including seconders of the motion and amendment E. Response to debate from mover of the amendment and mover of the main proposal.

A

Mover of motions/amendments (also included in main body of Minutes) Councillor Izzi Seccombe, Leader of the Council, presented the following motion for debate and was seconded by Councillor Alan Cockburn: “This Council believes that in facing the considerable financial challenges of the last and current Comprehensive Spending Review, Local Government has responded with innovation by transforming services and controlling financial expenditure responsibly. The Council believes that any further reduction in Government Grant to local authorities will have so great an impact on the ability to deliver safe and quality services that consideration should be given to a re-evaluation of the structure of Local Government and a move from a two tier system of principal councils to Unitary Local Government. Consequently, the Council believes that it is in the public interest to explore the opportunities of Unitary Local Government. It will engage with members of the public, other public sector bodies, businesses, the voluntary sector and Central Government to develop ideas around this way of working. It will provide evidence based analysis so that the people of Warwickshire can form their own views about unitary solutions” Councillor Izzi Seccombe drew attention to the following issues: Local Government Financial position: Warwickshire has had two grant settlements that have led the Council to reduce expenditure, first by £66m and this year by setting a budget that includes savings of £92m over the next four years. The next Government will still have the challenge of the public sector deficit and local government will continue to have to share in reducing the national debt. Future financial and service pressures: Warwickshire has managed its reduced settlement by streamlining services and reducing back room duplication and will continue to modernise. However, if there is a further difficult settlement, then it will be necessary to question what services to 1

cease. This will be against a background of growing pressures such as the increasing ageing population and uncertainties such as the Care Bill. Reason for current debate During the public conversations held last Autumn, and at other times, people asked if and when the Council would look at its governance arrangements and the structures within Warwickshire. The current coalition Government has made it clear that there will be no change in structure of local government within this cycle without support from all parties involved and concerns expressed by District and Borough councils is recognised. However, there is no intention of putting forward options for one form of structure over another at this meeting and there is no business or financial case to discuss at this point. This is a proposal to open up the debate. Considerations There is a need to consider improved decision making and speed up responses by not having, for example, six planning authorities, six waste departments and support services - HR, Finance, law and governance etc. The expenditure across councils in Warwickshire is over £1bn and there are 272 councillor roles for a population of 550k. Birmingham City Council spends £3.5bn, with 120 councillors and a population twice our size. It should be possible to design a structure that is lean in the core with strong local support for members with local budgets and enhanced powers for town and parish councils. This could strengthen communities and confidence in local government. Councillor June Tandy, Leader of the Labour Group, moved the following amendment and was seconded by Councillor Bill Olner: “That this Council takes no further action on moving toward becoming a Unitary Authority until such time as all partners in the public and private sectors have been consulted and have been informed of both positive and negative elements of one Warwickshire Unitary Authority, two Unitary Authorities on the basis of North and South Unitary Authorities, or any other valid proposal. At the point when all partners show they are in full agreement then this Council will decide if it wishes to commit more resources, prior to any legislation being put into place.” Councillor June Tandy expressed the following views in presenting her amendment: •

The press release and the report for this meeting had not been shared with her as Group Leader prior to publication and she did not wish to be associated with them.

•

The report was biased towards a single unitary authority for the whole of Warwickshire, there being many positives listed for a single unitary authority compared to the number of negative points listed for other models.

•

Only 14 of the 108 people who responded to the ‘Let’s Talk’ website consultation mentioned closer working with the public sector and/or 2

suggested Warwickshire becomes a unitary authority. In addition she had not been provided with any recorded evidence of the proposal being raised at the Leader’s road sessions or elsewhere.

B

•

Leaders and Deputies of the District and Borough Councils have been expressing opposition.

•

The savings proposals for a single unitary authority are stated to be around £30 a year for a Band D property, which is not a lot in these times of food banks and the other financial pressures on people.

•

Unless there is legislation, unitary government will not be possible without agreement from the partners concerned. It appears there will not be support from partners and therefore the work proposed would be time consuming and a waste of resources.

County councillors Councillor Mike Gittus •

We should aspire to a unitary form of local government with increased service responsibilities for the town and parish council areas.

•

The north of the County could possibly benefit from having town/parish council or some form of local level representation.

•

Town and parish councils provide local representation that is closest to the people, with active interest for local community and work in partnership. They provide many local services and are often best placed to involve local communities in how money is spent.

•

Most residents do not know which authority provides what service. They want a quality service at the price they can afford and who provides it is of little concern to them.

•

Unitary provides an opportunity to identify savings.

•

We are a ‘not for profit company’ that provides services that our customers pay for. Any surplus we make must be invested into our communities

Councillor Bob Hicks •

The proposals for unitary would result in a decrease in democratic representation and would only result in a relatively small saving.

•

There is an advantage in the two tier system in that it allows a range of views from different councils. If there were to be just one unitary authority in control of Warwickshire, then there would be just one voice for the whole County and there would be no alternative views or choices.

3

Councillor Jerry Roodhouse •

Whichever political party takes control of Government in 2015, there will be continuing pressure put on local government finance.

•

People care about the services provided to them, not who is providing them.

•

The debate should be based on the interests of our citizens.

•

The decision today is an ‘in principle’ decision to explore with all our colleagues in the public sector what our offer is to the public.

Councillor Philip Morris-Jones •

This is the start of a debate and any final decision should be subject of a referendum.

•

We have a duty to economise and modernise.

•

The estimated £30 cut in council tax for individuals is a small benefit to be gained in contrast to the size of reorganisation that would be involved.

•

Businesses make a disproportionately large contribution in business rates but without representation. They should be included in electoral rolls and be part of any referendum.

•

The re-shaping of the large property estate would require constructive discussions.

•

The reduction in councillor positions would mean that those councillors who continue in a unitary authority would have a doubling of their workload. A consequence of this could be that council duties become more of a full time vocation.

•

Any change and reorganisation must be for the benefit of those we represent.

Councillor Colin Hayfield •

Public are concerned about the quality of service they receive more than who provides it.

•

More could be done to make us less remote and to localise services, with more local decision making and tailoring of services to local need, within a two tier system.

•

A unitary approach could be taken within the current two tier system for certain services (for example waste services).

4

Councillor Howard Roberts •

As a rule we should be taking the least amount of money from citizens to deliver services.

•

By taking steps towards unitary status the Council would be preparing itself against the inevitable further cuts from Government.

•

The arguments for status quo come from those with a vested interest.

•

Unitary government would provide a single point of contact for residents and could provide a more dynamic local government.

Councillor Jonathan Chilvers • The current system does not work so change is needed. • At present responsibilities for services are split between authorities and the decision of one can impact negatively on the other (for example waste recycling is the responsibility of the county council and dealing with fly tipping the responsibility of districts and boroughs; Supporting People assessment is undertaken by the county Council and the districts and borough councils provide the advice and manage the property). A county council saving in one area can have a knock-on and negative impact for a district or borough council. Councillor Bill Gifford • Parish and town councils have an invaluable role to play in local government. • Any unitary authority would be a totally new body; it would not be the county taking over the district/borough councils. • There may be savings but it is not certain where they can be made and requires a very careful look at best practice. • We should be aware that civil servants have a propensity to favour unitary forms. The majority of people live within a unitary authority and the Government makes decisions which are focused on unitary authorities. C

Public Speakers Ron Ball – Warwickshire Police and Crime Commissioner • The Council could look to other collaborations to learn lessons on how to take forward the debate. One exemplar of this is the Warwickshire and West Mercia Police Alliance. The driver for the alliance was the need to work with reducing budgets and a desire to provide a level of service to the 5

public as efficiently as possible. The Alliance has been a phenomenal success and has been commended by HMIC. •

Whatever structure is in place, it should ensure proper, relevant engagement with the public and, although a reduction in meetings is welcome, this should not be at the cost of reducing public input and representation.

Robin Verso – Chair of Warwickshire Probation Trust • It is not easy for the Probation Service to resource working with two tiers of local government. Working within a unitary system may be easier. • The new national Probation Service will be organised on the basis of Coventry, Warwickshire and Solihull and the new rehabilitation company will operate on the basis of Warwickshire and West Mercia. This will mean there will be a lot more councils involved. • Coterminous boundaries with other public services would be preferable but this is difficult. A two unitary model, based on north Warwickshire and south Warwickshire would be sub-optimal in terms of coterminosity of services. • The debate should be had but on the basis of two key criteria of efficiency of services and the impact on the public. Linsey Luke – Federation of Small Businesses • The majority of small businesses canvassed welcome unitary status on the basis of cost savings, delivery of services, efficiency and reduced political bureaucracy. • There could be benefits in a streamlined planning process, having an economic development strategy that encourages businesses across the County to grow, and having a joined up single approach to business services and the costs that are charged to them. • There is a question about how much of the savings would be passed on to businesses. • There are different economic and social issues across the County and businesses want assurances that a unitary government would be able to divide its resources in a manner that is perceived as fair, in particular in rural communities. • A larger unitary local government would be looking to achieve economies of scale in procurement of services and would request county-wide bids rather than district wide ones. This is likely to make it more difficult for smaller local businesses to compete with larger regional and national ones. Would this be acceptable? Or would/could mechanisms be put in place to ensure smaller businesses can still compete successfully? 6

Councillor George Atkinson – Stratford on Avon District Council •

The status quo is not an option, nor is a split into two as this would ‘fudge’ the situation.

•

Consultation needs to be with all partners in public and private sector but there will never be full agreement.

•

One unitary body would be preferable as people identify with Warwickshire as an area.

•

The use of Area Boards, such as those used by Wiltshire, would help to ensure communication and strong representational links.

Councillor Bransby Thomas – Southam Town Council •

Improvement of service must be to all in Warwickshire – from the very young to the very old.

•

The Town Council does not believe all of the problems are financial. People want to receive quality services and want to know who to contact. They do not want to have to contact different tiers of government in order to get a resolution to an issue. A lack of communication between the tiers is common.

• Wiltshire has managed to maintain every front line service, even expanded some, but there is a danger of democratic deficit. A Warwickshire solution could include more community involvement at a local level. Councillor David Waitham – Newton Regis, Seckington and No Man’s Heath Parish Council • The impact of a move to unitary must take account of the role of parish and town councils. They will be the only bodies to fill the gap that will be created by moving to unitary government. Councillor Lennox Cumberbatch – Alcester Town Council • Will the role of town and parish councils be enhanced? • Unitary local government should be explored as unitary bodies are generally better equipped for financial sustainability, will alleviate confusion and could provide better value for money. •

It will take months of planning and the public must be assured that they have an opportunity to contribute and kept up to date of progress.

Councillor Mark Cargill – Mayor of Alcester •

Towns and countryside each have specific needs. 7

•

Those closest to communities know best how to spend money. True localism is needed with decisions taken locally, with appropriate funds and expertise.

•

There would need to be critical mass – neither too large nor too small.

•

A unitary authority will inevitably become more distant from towns and parishes but therefore they must become more accessible.

•

Larger towns, and the amalgamation of small parishes for purposes of negotiation to act as larger local parishes, will be more able to make themselves heard in a unitary authority.

•

A business model is required to allocate funds and schedule work.

•

Planning decisions must be devolved to local level but with the unitary authority be the expert client providing services on an ad hoc basis, using organisations such as WALC to provide advice.

Robert Nash – Leamington Spa Town Clerk, speaking as resident of Rugby and with experience of Wiltshire Council reorganisation •

Wiltshire had a very well developed model of devolution of decision making and service delivery even before restructuring was on the agenda. Parish and town councils had always punched their weight and were significant funding partners and service delivery organisations that levy between £1.5m£2m and, for example, one parish council levies £199 per annum for a Band D property.

•

Unitary does not necessarily mean lower council tax. For example, the council tax in Wiltshire now averages £1600 for a Band D property, compared to the current Band D cost in Warwick of £1510.

•

A unitary model must allow for engagement with local structures and the debate should include other options, not just one unitary or a north and south model.

Councillor Clive Thomas, Stratford Town Council and District Council •

Unitary government is welcome but there also needs to be stronger powers for parish councils.

•

In Stratford, parish councils have been funding services which have been cut (for example CCTV cameras) but without any resource to do so.

•

All options should be explored but this must be discussed with the district/borough and town/parish councils and this could be done in the County Council’s community forums.

8

Councillor Jim Foster, Nuneaton and Borough but speaking as resident •

Unitary would remove the split and overlap of functions between District and County government, increase efficiency and improve delivery of service and communication with the public.

Councillor Robin Aird – Chair of Dunchurch Parish Council •

The potential for savings appears indisputable.

•

There is a danger that a unitary council will be seen as too remote and people’s views will get lost.

•

The report diminishes and under-values the role of parish and town councils in the current three tier system. For example, Dunchurch Parish Council provides bus shelters, more than 300 street lighting columns, a successful community library and a new youth service.

•

If a unitary authority is established it needs to include the type of ‘coal face’ contact that parish councils presently have. Parish councils would need to be more proactive and play an expanded role.

•

There is a trend to pass down services to parish councils without the finance with the assumption that there is a bottomless pit of voluntary workers, but there is not.

•

Planning is an area of contention and, whilst not advocating wholly local decision making, there must be a mechanism whereby local opinion counts.

Eric Wood – Deputy Police and Crime Commissioner •

Powers have been taken away from local government to central government and the question is now 'what is local government for?'

•

It is time to tell central government that local government is important but this needs to be based on strength and agreement across the parties based on trust. This debate could benefit from using an independent commission.

Martin McMahon – Divisional Secretary of National Union of Teachers •

Warwickshire is extremely socio-economically diverse. A move towards a unitary local authority may have the effect of widening the socio-economic gap between the more affluent parts of the County the south and the less affluent parts of the county in the north.

•

Taking away the autonomy of the North Warwickshire District Council and Nuneaton and Bedworth Borough Council could be a retrograde step and widen the socio-economic inequalities in the County.

9

Alison Hodge – County Officer for Warwickshire Association of Local Councils •

D

The Association welcomes the debate and any opportunity to make it easier for town and parish councils to operate. The suggestion of increased resources is particularly welcomed.

County Councillors Councillor Chris Saint • If successful, the LGA campaign, ‘Rewiring of Public Services’ will bring back some of the powers to local government. • It is important that other District and Borough leaders take part in this debate. • There is value in the grass roots local government provided by parish and town councils. • There is a need for efficiencies (so it is important to investigate the unitary options) but the connection with local communities must be retained.

Councillor Alan Webb • Nobody should ever need to have the argument about which council is responsible for which service. The public should be able to take an issue to either tier and someone should make sure the issue is put through a process so that it is dealt with. • It is important that there is consultation that allows everyone to have their say on this and not let the Secretary of State decide for us. Councillor John Whitehouse •

Working together in a two tier structure can be challenge (for example in getting agreement on key areas such as a joint waste partnership) and services are fragmented (for example the County Council deals with onstreet parking, and districts/boroughs deal with off-street).

•

The Area Board approach in Wiltshire may work. However, if there could be real power devolved to a local level, then it would matter less what structure is in place.

Councillor Matt Western •

Warwickshire District and Borough leaders are not at this meeting because they feel the County Council is dictating the terms of the debate.

•

If there are savings then they would be passed on to central government – either directly or indirectly (e.g. through reduced grant). 10

•

This debate is looking at the wrong question. The right question should at present be what services should be where and how they should be delivered.

Councillor John Holland •

The objective should be to raise the quality of services and to drive down costs. This could be achieved through agreement of both the motion and the amendment.

•

The public do not need to know who is delivering a service which is why the one customer service telephone number was introduced in Warwick, along with the ‘one stop shop’ where staff can deal with District or County business as well as access other bodies, such as the police.

•

There are benefits in joining together and danger in staying separate. Councils must work together.

Councillor Maggie O’Rourke •

The Districts and Boroughs do not feel as though they have been treated as equal partners in this debate. It is important that all stakeholders are involved.

Councillor Sarah Boad •

Town and parish councils are invaluable. A large part of the County suffers from not having the benefit of town and parish councils.

•

A move to unitary may not save a huge amount of money but could bring benefits in efficiency and in effectiveness in how we deliver services.

Councillor Richard Chattaway • The County and Districts are already involved in joint working. Unitary government is not needed for this. • The amendment is a reality check as District and Borough partners are saying no to this at this moment in time. • The system works in Warwickshire and, although there are some merits in having a unitary authority, this would involve an enormous amount of work when we do not have support. • There were only eight in the ‘You Choose’ debate who expressed an interest in unitary and most of today’s speakers who support unitary are Town and Parish councillors. There are few residents asking for unitary government. • Most people identify with the area they live in, not Warwickshire as a whole. 11

Councillor Keith Kondakor •

Nuneaton and Warwick are poorly connected. There should be at least two authorities so that decision making is brought into Nuneaton and Bedworth.

• There should also be shared services. For example waste should be joined up with one Warwickshire Waste Authority. • The needs of Nuneaton are very different from those of Stratford. Two separate unitaries would enable the needs of each area to be met. •

Other possibilities should also be considered. Leicestershire is exploring this issue and it may make sense to have three unitary authorities – one could include Nuneaton and Hinckley where there are already common connections, including hospitals etc.

•

Housing and jobs are key areas to address. A single authority could take jobs from Nuneaton.

•

Town and parish councils should also be encouraged in areas that do not already have them.

Councillor Jenny Fradgley • Whilst supporting the principle of unitary and strong parish/town councils, there is a need to have more facts and models to examine. • A timescale needs to be set and people need to know when the next level of informed debate will begin. Councillor Mike Perry • This is the start of a debate that will raise awareness of the issues with the public Until this happens the public can not have enough understanding or arrive at a decision. • This needs to be explored given the financial situation and the need to serve people better. At parish meetings there is an interest in value for money. • There is a need for more information, including looking at the Wiltshire model and a proper investigation of options. • Town and parish councils must remain an integral part of the system. They are the eyes and ears. • A unitary would also need a back-up system to ensure it does have local connections.

12

Councillor Dave Parsons •

This is not simply a County Council decision. There must be backing from partners or the process will be pointless.

•

The press release and the report have alienated other councils as they consider a conclusion had been met before the debate.

•

North Warwickshire Borough Council has recently had a review and the verdict of that was that the Council ‘punches above its weight’ and are efficient. This proposal is to go ahead without talking to them.

Councillor Kate Rolfe •

It is up to the people of Warwickshire, not councils, who make the decision on unitary. There should be a referendum for this.

Councillor John Horner •

The proposal is to go forward with debate but the amendment wants full agreement from partners. The decision should not be with those who have an invested interest in maintaining the status quo.

Councillor Clive Rickhards •

There should not be democracy at a discount. This should not be pursued on the basis of a cuts agenda.

•

The focus should be on effective representative and responsible government. The Wiltshire model should be looked at, in particular having Area Boards with local decision making, as opposed to Warwickshire’s community forums that do not have decision making powers.

Councillor Les Caborn •

This is the start of a debate to find out what people think. Warwick District Council has not debated this but that should not stop the debate going forward.

Councillor Peter Fowler •

Town and parish councils are a very important part to play in local government.

•

The possibility of involving an independent body to assist with the debate should be considered.

•

All of the pros and cons need to be explored and the public views obtained. They should decide.

13

Councillor Bill Olner – Seconder of amendment •

There was no discussion in the budget setting process about the cost of this exercise. It will cost if the consultation is to be undertaken properly and widely and we should know the cost.

•

Town and parish councils do good work but the motion does not necessarily give them more power. They could end up with less. For instance will they still have the power of precept?

Councillor Alan Cockburn – Seconder of motion •

By 2018 this Council will have reduced its annual spend by one third and it will not end there. Therefore the Council should not let any stone go unturned in trying to protect its front line services. It would be irresponsible not to take this opportunity.

•

It will not be possible to get the agreement of everybody to unitary as suggested in the amendment. However, as public services continue to contract, future governments may consider unitary as inevitable and this debate will be a reference point.

E.

Concluding comments from mover of amendment and proposal

Councillor June Tandy – mover of amendment •

It is not practicable to parish highly populated urban areas. The Area Committees provided some local decision making powers but they were abolished and replaced by community forums that do not have power.

•

A critical question is whether town and parish councils will be given powers under a unitary system?

•

All councils are under financial strain and there is no reason to consider that will change under a unitary council. The government will decide how much the council should have and this will not necessarily be what it needs or deserves.

•

A referendum will not enable a unitary authority to be created whilst there is not the support of district and borough councils. If there is opposition then unitary government cannot go forward without legislation.

•

The debate can still go forward but a lot of money should not be spent on it until the Council knows whether it has to do it or not.

Councillor Izzi Seccombe- proposer of motion •

More than 50% of the council sit on both the County Council and on a District or Borough Council and so they are already doing the job of a unitary councillor.

14

•

•

•

This is an opportunity to drive forward a single council that will be more relevant, vibrant, that responds better, has quicker decision making, economies of scale. and improve community leadership. The Council can look at the Wiltshire model and others but we want Warwickshire to design what is relevant for Warwickshire. The people of Warwickshire must be part of that. This will take us forward as a progressive Council and one that people will turn out and vote for. This is the start of the opening up of the discussion.

End

15

DRAFT PLAN SUBJECT TO FINAL COUNCIL APPROVAL FEB 2014 Council 25 February 2014 -Minutes Appendix B

SHAPING THE

FUTURE Warwickshire’s One Organisational Plan 2014-2018

£

£

£

£

DRAFT PLAN SUBJECT TO FINAL COUNCIL APPROVAL FEB 2014 Council 25 February 2014 -Minutes Appendix B

Welcome to Shaping the Future, Warwickshire County Council’s One Organisational Plan for 2014 – 2018 In this plan we set out Warwickshire County Council’s core purpose and desired outcomes ensuring we focus on the services we can afford both now and in the medium term. Warwickshire County Council will be an organisation that can develop and sustain a society that looks after its most vulnerable members, that delivers quality services at the right time, and seeks opportunities for economic growth and innovation. For the foreseeable future local government does not have the money it previously had to spend on services. We will be responsible and present an honest and realistic picture to the people of Warwickshire about the challenges that lie ahead and your local elected members will continue to support our communities in meeting these challenges. The Council has identified the need to make around £92million savings by 2018. This figure has arisen from reductions in the grants we receive from Government, pressures from inflation and additional pressures from our changing population. This means shaping the future of a very different Warwickshire County Council. Warwickshire County Council has been very successful at managing its finances well in the past. The Council has a strong track record of delivering savings, making efficiencies and transforming our services within our available resources. Given the County Council has no overall political party in control and despite our political ideologies, we will always have the best interests of our communities at heart and by working together, we will continue to successfully manage all our resources. Delivering savings on this scale is a huge undertaking, but by taking difficult decisions and putting ourselves in a financially sustainable position, whilst at the same time investing in Warwickshire’s future, the County Council can together, successfully meet this challenge.

Cllr Izzi Seccombe, Leader of Warwickshire County Council

Warwickshire in the future

DRAFT PLAN SUBJECT TO FINAL COUNCIL APPROVAL FEB 2014 Council 25 February 2014 -Minutes Appendix B

In delivering our One Organisational Plan over the next four years (2014-18) we will be shaping the future of Warwickshire. We know that people will access services in different ways and technology will play a big role in this. By understanding the Warwickshire of 2018 we can ensure we can plan for our future today.

By 2018 population of Warwickshire will be

577,400

More single person More older people will households live independently

There will be continued increased demand for

Smartphone and broadband

are changing the way people access services

People will live in the family home for longer

with more over 65s and more school age children.

skilled workers Continuing focus on the growth of the economy.

Cost of living

will continue to

outstrip pay.

More families living on or close to the breadline.

Source: Warwickshire Landscape 2018 paper, Warwickshire Observatory.

with formal qualifications and employment growth in higher skilled occupations.

Increased requests for support and demand on our services.

147,000

adults in Warwickshire will live with at least one long term health condition

Ageing population puts pressure on health and social care.

Continued drive towards maintaining independence and preventative approaches.

DRAFT PLAN SUBJECT TO FINAL COUNCIL APPROVAL FEB 2014 Council 25 February 2014 -Minutes Appendix B

Our Core Purpose is to

“

“

Develop and sustain a society that looks after its most vulnerable members, delivers appropriate, quality services at the right time, and seeks opportunities for economic growth and innovation.

We will know that we are on the right track when

£

£

£

£

Our economy is vibrant, residents have access to jobs, training and skills development.

Our communities and individuals are safe and protected from harm and are able to remain independent for longer.

Warwickshire's communities are supported by excellent communications and transport infrastructure.

The health and wellbeing of all in Warwickshire is protected.

Resources and services are targeted effectively and efficiently whether delivered by the local authority, commissioned, or in partnership.

DRAFT PLAN SUBJECT TO FINAL COUNCIL APPROVAL FEB 2014 Council 25 February 2014 -Minutes Appendix B

By delivering on our core purpose these are the outcomes we will secure for Warwickshire and the communities and businesses we serve. Our communities and individuals are safe and protected from harm and are able to remain independent for longer

Our vulnerable individuals are safe, protected from harm and independent for longer Our children live in safe and supportive families Our communities and individuals are encouraged to help themselves and feel safe and secure Our voluntary sector provide a strong offer of targeted support. Our Councillors are strong community leaders

The health and wellbeing of all in Warwickshire is protected

Improved health and well-being for everyone Our residents have choice and exercise maximum control over their health and social care regardless of where they live Our residents are happy and have good levels of mental and physical health Young people understand the choices available to lead healthy lives Our residents enjoy an enhanced quality of life

Our economy is vibrant, residents have access to jobs, training and skills development

Warwickshire's communities are supported by excellent communications and transport infrastructure

Warwickshire is the business centre of choice for the region

Our planning infrastructure delivers strategic solutions for partners and ourselves

Our economy provides quality jobs and unlocks entrepreneurship

Our integrated sustainable transport networks are fit for the future and meet the needs of residents and businesses

Our young people are supported to meet their needs and aspirations Our residents learn throughout their lives, are skilled and ready for employment and fulfill their potential £

£

£

The digital divide in Warwickshire is addressed and opportunities from new technologies are maximised

£

We aim to be better performing than other neighbouring/similar places

Resources and services are targeted effectively and efficiently whether delivered by the local authority, commissioned or in partnership

The council’s budget remains balanced and resources are managed effectively High quality needs based public services are deployed effectively and efficiently no matter how they are provided Customers access information through multiple channels and demand for council services is effectively managed Our staff are highly skilled and supported Risk and change is managed effectively.

DRAFT PLAN SUBJECT TO FINAL COUNCIL APPROVAL FEB 2014 Council 25 February 2014 -Minutes Appendix B

Budget On 6 February 2014 Warwickshire County Council agreed a medium term financial plan covering the period 2014 – 2018. This medium term financial plan will underpin the delivery of our One Organisational Plan and we will continue to review our medium term revenue position during the course of the plan.

Overall Predicted Council Revenue Position The amount of money we have available to deliver our core purpose will be in the region of £399m by 2018. A year by year breakdown is presented in more detail here and includes Council Tax at a rate of 1.99%

Council tax remains the biggest source of income for Warwickshire County Council and the development of the 2014-18 One Organisational Plan has provided the opportunity to take a longer term approach to setting the level of council tax. We have identified that over the four years of the plan we must deliver savings of between £20million - £25million each year to ensure a sustainable budget over the medium term. This amounts to a total saving of £92million. The savings have been identified from all areas of our activity and will be delivered in a phased manner between 2014 – 2018.

2014/15 £m

2015/16 £m

2016/17 £m

2017/18 £m

Revenue Support Grant

73

55

47

40

Business Rates

58

59

60

62

44

68

65

63

Council Tax (1.99% year on year increase)2

217

223

228

234

Total Revenue Resource

392

405

400

399

Other Governement Grants

1

Inflation

£ The cost of inflation over the period 2014 – 18 will be in the region of £41million. Funding has been allocated to cover the cost of inflation at a local level to minimise the impact on services.

Spending Pressures

SPENDING

We have allocated £5million a year to respond to expected spending pressures including £2.5million a year from 2015/16 to respond to any new spending pressures that emerge to ensure we have in place a medium term plan that is financially resilient.

Capital Resources

£

Reduce Debt

£

We will use our capital resources over the next four years to support the growth of the local economy through investment in infrastructure. This support will not only stimulate economic growth but deliver a positive and sustainable economic impact for the people of Warwickshire.

1 Other Governement Grants included here are New Homes Bonus, Better Care Fund, Public Health Grant, Education Support Grant and Local Services Grants. Dedicated Schools Grant is excluded. 2 Council Tax figures assume a 0.5% year-on-year increase in tax base in future years.

Capital resources will also be used to reduce the authority’s level of outstanding debt by keeping the existing limit on borrowing to £20m.

Our commitment to you

DRAFT PLAN SUBJECT TO FINAL COUNCIL APPROVAL FEB 2014 Council 25 February 2014 -Minutes Appendix B

We are committed to being an open and transparent council. In delivering our One Organisational Plan we will engage with Warwickshire people to help make our services fit for the future, we will engage and communicate early and make sure we listen to the feedback we receive.

We will be honest and open about our progress and publish regular updates on how we are doing in delivering this plan. We will let you know how our services change and transform and will engage with you to tackle it together.

We will engage and communicate

We will listen to Warwickshire

We will update you on our progress

We will tell you how we are managing our money

DRAFT PLAN SUBJECT TO FINAL COUNCIL APPROVAL FEB 2014 Council 25 February 2014 -Minutes Appendix B

Contact: Service Improvement and Change Management [email protected] www.warwickshire.gov.uk/shapingthefuture February 2014

DRAFT PLAN (LABOUR GROUP AMENDMENT) FEB 2014 Council 25 February 2014 Minutes Appendix C

North North Warwickshire Warwickshire

SHAPING THE

FUTURE OF WARWICKSHIRE

Nuneaton Nuneaton & & Bedworth Bedworth

Rugby

Warwick Warwick

Stratford-on-Avon Stratford-on-Avon

Warwickshire’s One Organisational Plan 2014-2018

DRAFT PLAN (LABOUR GROUP AMENDMENT) FEB 2014 Council 25 February 2014 Minutes Appendix C

Welcome to Shaping the Future, Warwickshire County Council’s One Organisational Plan for 2014 – 2018 In this plan we set out Warwickshire County Council’s core purpose and priorities ensuring we focus on the services we can afford both now and in the medium term. Warwickshire County Council will be an organisation that can develop and sustain a society that looks after its most vulnerable members, that delivers quality services at the right time, and seeks opportunities for economic growth and innovation. For the foreseeable future local government does not have the money it previously had to spend on services. We will be responsible and present an honest and realistic picture to the people of Warwickshire about the challenges that lie ahead. The Council has identified the need to make around £92million savings by 2018. This figure has arisen from reductions in the grants we receive from Government, pressures from inflation and additional pressures from our changing population. This means shaping the future of a very different Warwickshire County Council. Warwickshire County Council has been very successful at managing its finances well in the past. The Council has a strong track record of delivering savings, making efficiencies and transforming our services within our available resources. This is something we have to continue to do. Delivering savings on this scale is a huge undertaking, but by taking difficult decisions and putting ourselves in a financially sustainable position, whilst at the same time investing in Warwickshire’s future, the County Council can successfully meet this challenge. Cllr Izzi Seccombe, Leader of Warwickshire County Council

Warwickshire in the future

DRAFT PLAN (LABOUR GROUP AMENDMENT) FEB 2014 Council 25 February 2014 Minutes Appendix C

In delivering our One Organisational Plan over the next four years (2014-18) we will be shaping the future of Warwickshire. We know that people will want to access services in different ways, not only through face to face contact but through the increasing use of technology to access services at any time of day or night. By using a robust evidence base, we can begin to understand the Warwickshire of 2018 and plan for our future today.

By 2018 population of Warwickshire will be

577,400

More single person More older people will households live independently

There will be continued increased demand for

Smartphone and broadband

are changing the way people access services

People will live in the family home for longer

with more over 65s and more school age children.

skilled workers Continuing focus on the growth of the economy.

Cost of living

will continue to

outstrip pay.

More families living on or close to the breadline.

Source: Warwickshire Landscape 2018 paper, Warwickshire Observatory.

with formal qualifications and employment growth in higher skilled occupations.

Increased requests for support and demand on our services.

147,000

adults in Warwickshire will live with at least one long term health condition

Ageing population puts pressure on health and social care.

Continued drive towards maintaining independence and preventative approaches.

“

“

Our Core Purpose is to

DRAFT PLAN (LABOUR GROUP AMENDMENT) FEB 2014 Council 25 February 2014 Minutes Appendix C

Develop and sustain a society that looks after its most vulnerable members, delivers appropriate, quality services at the right time, and seeks opportunities for economic growth for all.

Our Core Priorities for Warwickshire County Council will be: To protect our communities from harm by seeking to protect those services that impact on those most at risk from harm Outcome

To look after the most vulnerable members of our communities by ensuring our resources are targeted effectively to ensure a better quality of life

£

£

£

£

Our communities and individuals are safe and protected from harm

Outcome

Our vulnerable residents enjoy an enhanced quality of life and the health and wellbeing of all is protected.

Outcome

Our communities & individuals access high quality education & training opportunities and are skilled for the future

Outcome

Services are targeted and delivered appropriately ensuring residents are treated fairly and equally

Outcome

Resources and services are targeted effectively and efficiently whether delivered by the local authority, commissioned or in partnership

To take a holistic approach to economic development by having a joined up skills agenda and joined up approach to education attainment and learning To create a more equitable society by investing the councils resources where there is the most need

To ensure resources and services are targeted effectively and efficiently whether delivered by the local authority , commissioned or in partnership

DRAFT PLAN (LABOUR GROUP AMENDMENT) FEB 2014 Council 25 February 2014 Minutes Appendix C

By delivering on our core purpose these are the outcomes we will secure for Warwickshire and the communities and businesses we serve. Our communities & individuals are safe and protected from harm

Our vulnerable individuals are safe, protected from harm and independent for longer. Our children live in safe and supportive families. Our communities and individuals are encouraged to help themselves. Our communities and individuals feel safe and secure.

Our vulnerable residents enjoy an enhanced quality of life and the health and wellbeing of all is protected Improved health and well-being for everyone Our residents have choice and exercise maximum control over their health and social care regardless of where they live.

Our communities & individuals access high quality education & training opportunities and are skilled for the future

Services are targeted and delivered appropriately ensuring residents and customers are treated fairly and equally

Economic Growth is secured.

Access to services is based on clear and fair criteria

Warwickshire is the business centre of choice for the region Work related skills in our communities and for individuals are improved.

Our residents are mentally and emotionally healthy and strong.

Our residents learn throughout their lives, and are skilled and ready for employment.

Our residents enjoy an enhanced quality of life.

Our vibrant economy provides high quality jobs and delivers appropriate opportunities for everyone

Young people understand the choices available to lead healthy lives

£

£

Targeted services help our residents and communities who most need support Universal services are accessible on an equal and fair basis

£

Our young people£are supported to meet their needs and aspirations

We aim to be better performing than other neighbouring/similar places

Resources and services are targeted effectively and efficiently whether delivered by the local authority , commissioned or in partnership

The council’s budget remains balanced and resources are managed effectively High quality needs based public services are deployed effectively and efficiently no matter how they are provided Customers access information through multiple channels and demand for council services is effectively managed Our staff are highly skilled and supported Risk and change is managed effectively

DRAFT PLAN (LABOUR GROUP AMENDMENT) FEB 2014 Council 25 February 2014 Minutes Appendix C

Budget On 6 February 2014 Warwickshire County Council agreed a medium term financial plan covering the period 2014 – 2018. This medium term financial plan will underpin the delivery of our One Organisational Plan and we will continue to review our medium term revenue position during the course of the plan.

Overall Predicted Council Revenue Position The amount of money we have available to deliver our core purpose will be in the region of £399m by 2018. A year by year breakdown is presented in more detail here and includes Council Tax at a rate of 1.99%

Council tax remains the biggest source of income for Warwickshire County Council and the development of the 2014-18 One Organisational Plan has provided the opportunity to take a longer term approach to setting the level of council tax. We have identified that over the four years of the plan we must deliver savings of between £20million - £25million each year to ensure a sustainable budget over the medium term. This amounts to a total saving of £92million. The savings have been identified from all areas of our activity and will be delivered in a phased manner between 2014 – 2018.

2014/15 £m

2015/16 £m

2016/17 £m

2017/18 £m

Revenue Support Grant

73

55

47

40

Business Rates

58

59

60

62

44

68

65

63

Council Tax (1.99% year on year increase)2

217

223

228

234

Total Revenue Resource

392

405

400

399

Other Governement Grants

1

Inflation

£ The cost of inflation over the period 2014 – 18 will be in the region of £41million. Funding has been allocated to cover the cost of inflation at a local level to minimise the impact on services.

Spending Pressures

SPENDING

We have allocated £5million a year to respond to expected spending pressures including £2.5million a year from 2015/16 to respond to any new spending pressures that emerge to ensure we have in place a medium term plan that is financially resilient.

Capital Resources

£

Reduce Debt

£

We will use our capital resources over the next four years to support the growth of the local economy through investment in infrastructure. This support will not only stimulate economic growth but deliver a positive and sustainable economic impact for the people of Warwickshire.

1 Other Governement Grants included here are New Homes Bonus, Better Care Fund, Public Health Grant, Education Support Grant and Local Services Grants. Dedicated Schools Grant is excluded. 2 Council Tax figures assume a 0.5% year-on-year increase in tax base in future years.

Capital resources will also be used to reduce the authority’s level of outstanding debt by keeping the existing limit on borrowing to £20m.

Our commitment to you

DRAFT PLAN (LABOUR GROUP AMENDMENT) FEB 2014 Council 25 February 2014 Minutes Appendix C

We are committed to being an open and transparent council. In delivering our One Organisational Plan we will engage with Warwickshire people, we will consult and communicate at the right time and make sure we listen to the feedback we receive

We will be honest and open about our progress and publish regular updates on how we are doing in delivering this plan. We will let you know how our services change and transform and if we are not on track we will let you know and tell you how we will tackle this.

We will engage, consult and communicate

We will listen to Warwickshire

We will update you on our progress

We will tell you how we are managing our money

DRAFT PLAN (LABOUR GROUP AMENDMENT) FEB 2014 Council 25 February 2014 Minutes Appendix C

Contact: Service Improvement and Change Management [email protected] www.warwickshire.gov.uk/shapingthefuture February 2014