Loading
The decisions as the council's minutes record them. A plain-language summary follows once it has been written.
RESOLVED That Harriet Lavender be appointed to the role of Head of Planning. [Councillor Alan Dennison left the meeting at this juncture.] The webcast then resumed in open session.
RESOLVED That the Committee recognise that the Assistant Chief Executive’s appointment should have been at Spinal Point 2 as opposed to Spinal Point 1, and recommends to Council that appropriate steps be taken to rectify this, namely through an accelerated progression through the spinal points and the payment of appropriate back pay. The meeting then resumed in open session.
RESOLVED (a) That Option 2 for the Chief Executive review be approved as follows: Commence a review facilitated by an independent facilitator utilising the PCC template. Cost £1,200 (b) That Option 2 for the Chief Officers review be approved as follows: Commence a performance review approach undertaken by the Chief Executive then cascaded through Directors to their direct reports utilising the PCC templates. No Additional Cost but training provided by Head of HR
RESOLVED That the public be excluded from the meeting in accordance with Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972 as it involves the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in Paragraph 12 of Part 4 of Schedule 12A to the Act; and that the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information. The webcast was then paused. Having convened in private session under the terms of Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972, the Chief Executive outlined the details around the current VSS applications, with questions answered by both the Chief Executive and the Head of HR. The webcast was then resumed. Councillor Anji Tinley sought clarification in regards to the roles that were due to be terminated, and whether they would be redistributed across the Authority to other staff. She also wished for confirmation that none of the 21 applicants would be reappointed. In response, the Chief Executive explained that in some cases there was a degradation on service delivery, as listed in the savings measures agreed by Council on 7 March 2024. In regards to individual savings measures, the Chief Executive commented that they would be subject to an individual decision by Cabinet or the Executive. He also explained that for the other roles that had been determined by the Senior Leadership Team, there was no intention to reinvent another post to do the function that was already being delivered. In regards to reappointments, the Head of HR explained that there was provision for people to be reemployed by the Authority, after a period of 12 months. Councillor Tinley sought clarification as to whether people could only apply after the 12 month period. The Head of HR confirmed this to be the case. The Recommendation was Moved by Councillor Paul Miller; Seconded by Councillor Jacob Williams. The vote, undertaken by a show of hands, was carried. RESOLVED That the report be noted.
There were no declarations of interest made at this point in the meeting.
Councillor Paul Miller Moved the Recommendation; Seconded by Councillor Di Clements. The vote was taken by way of a show of hands and carried. RESOLVED That the Minutes of the Senior Staff Committee Meeting held on 16 February 2024 be approved as a correct record.
Prior to the final interviews for the post of Head of Planning, the Chair invited Mr Seb Lowe from Gatenby Sanderson, to give an overview of the recruitment process so far, including how many people applied for the role. In response, Mr Lowe explained that over the course of a four week period, a broad search process was conducted to attract candidates for the position. He explained that the process included proactively approaching people in order to secure their interest, as well as running a public advertising campaign. Over the course of the process, he stated that there were 135 individuals across England, Wales and Scotland who were approached, with twelve people applying for the job and of whom six were selected for a first stage interview. He stated that the first stage interview was a technical interview, where a third-party technical expert interviewed all six candidates from a purely technical basis, and determined that there were three candidates who were technically strong enough to perform the role. Mr Lowe then highlighted that there was a further suite of interviews for the three candidates, which included a Management Panel interview, as well as a Stakeholder Panel. The result of that process was said to be that the three candidates were all worthy of consideration by the Committee. The Chair sought clarification as to whether Mr Lowe was confident that the final candidates were the best available and that they met the specification of the role. In response, Mr Lowe explained that all candidates had been through a tough and challenging process and confirmed that he was confident that the Committee had three excellent candidates before them.
The Committee considered excluding the public from the next item of business, as it involved the disclosure of exempt information as defined in Paragraph 12 of Part 4 of Schedule 12A to the Local Government Act 1972. The Chair Moved the exclusion of the public; Seconded by Councillor David Simpson. The vote was taken by a roll call and was carried. The votes were recorded as follows: For the Motion: Councillors Paul Miller, Tessa Hodgson, Di Clements, Alan Dennison, David Simpson, Anji Tinley and Jacob Williams [7] RESOLVED That the public be excluded from the meeting for the next item of business in accordance with Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972 as it involves the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in Paragraph 12 of Part 4 of Schedule 12A to the Act; and that the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information. The webcast was paused at this juncture.
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED That Harriet Lavender be appointed to the role of Head of Planning. [Councillor Alan Dennison left the meeting at this juncture.] The webcast then resumed in open session.
The Committee convened in private session under the terms of Paragraph 12 of Part 4 of Schedule 12A to the Local Government Act 1972. The Committee interviewed the three short-listed candidates for the post ofHead of Planning. Following the interviews, the Chief Executive outlined feedback from the Stakeholder Panel process. The Committee then considered each candidate having regard to the job description, person specification for the post and their performance. Councillor Di Clements Moved that Harriet Lavender be appointed to the role of Head of Planning; Seconded by Councillor Anji Tinley. The Motion was put to the vote and carried. RESOLVED That Harriet Lavender be appointed to the role of Head of Planning. [Councillor Alan Dennison left the meeting at this juncture.] The webcast then resumed in open session.
The Committee considered excluding the public from the next item of business, as it involved the disclosure of exempt information as defined in Paragraph 12 of Part 4 of Schedule 12A to the Local Government Act 1972. The Chair Moved the exclusion of the public; Seconded by Councillor David Simpson. The vote was taken by a roll call and was carried. The votes were recorded as follows: For the Motion: Councillors Paul Miller, Tessa Hodgson, Di Clements, David Simpson, Anji Tinley and Jacob Williams [6] RESOLVED That the public be excluded from the meeting for the next item of business in accordance with Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972 as it involves the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in Paragraph 12 of Part 4 of Schedule 12A to the Act; and that the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information. The webcast was paused at this juncture.
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED That the Committee recognise that the Assistant Chief Executive’s appointment should have been at Spinal Point 2 as opposed to Spinal Point 1, and recommends to Council that appropriate steps be taken to rectify this, namely through an accelerated progression through the spinal points and the payment of appropriate back pay. The meeting then resumed in open session.
Having convened in private session under the terms of Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972, the Committee considered an exempt report by the Chief Executive that outlined a salary increment progression for the Assistant Chief Executive. The Committee considered the report and questions were answered by both the Chief Executive and the Head of HR. The Chair then suggested the following: That the Committee recognise that the Assistant Chief Executive’s appointment should have been at Spinal Point 2 as opposed to Spinal Point 1, and recommends to Council that appropriate steps be taken to rectify this, namely through an accelerated progression through the spinal points and the payment of appropriate back pay. Moved by Councillor Di Clements; Seconded by Councillor Anji Tinley. For the Motion: Councillors Paul Miller, Tessa Hodgson, Di Clements, David Simpson, Anji Tinley and Jacob Williams [6] RESOLVED That the Committee recognise that the Assistant Chief Executive’s appointment should have been at Spinal Point 2 as opposed to Spinal Point 1, and recommends to Council that appropriate steps be taken to rectify this, namely through an accelerated progression through the spinal points and the payment of appropriate back pay. The meeting then resumed in open session.
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED (a) That Option 2 for the Chief Executive review be approved as follows: Commence a review facilitated by an independent facilitator utilising the PCC template. Cost £1,200 (b) That Option 2 for the Chief Officers review be approved as follows: Commence a performance review approach undertaken by the Chief Executive then cascaded through Directors to their direct reports utilising the PCC templates. No Additional Cost but training provided by Head of HR
The Committee considered a report by the Head of Human Resources which outlined potential approaches in regards to the performance management of the Chief Executive and Chief Officers. The Head of Human Resources introduced the report and stated that it set out the options to be considered, to manage the performance management review for the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Officers. She then outlined the available options, as highlighted in the report, and suggested that an internal approach be undertaken, due to the cost of the other options. Once the performance review of the Chief Executive had been conducted, the Head of HR explained that the next stage would be to implement the performance review to the Chief Officers. She highlighted that Chief Officers would then commence performance reviews across the remainder of their teams in an effective manner, to set the direction for the strategy and policy for the year ahead. The Chair stated his support for a review facilitated by an independent facilitator for the Chief Executive, but would not advocate the same approach for Chief Officers, and stated his support for an internal review, undertaken by the Chief Executive. Councillor Miller then wished for an annual agenda item in order to update the Committee on the performance reviews and when they were undertaken, in order for Members to be kept informed of the process. Councillor Anji Tinley agreed with Councillor Miller, but believed that both reviews should be independent, in order to avoid bias. The Chief Executive stated that he would not necessarily support independent reviews due to current budget constraints, and that it could be done with no cost to the Authority. He stated that he would be happy to bring an annual update to the Committee. The Chief Executive highlighted the benefit of a 360° review, and if selected, he recommended waiting a year due to the costs involved. Councillor David Simpson referred to the first review of the Chief Executive and stated he was content with how it was carried out, in regards to being guided by a consultant at the time. He stated, however, that he felt no value was added to the review by the consultant, and did not think an independent facilitator was required this time round. Councillor Simpson highlighted that they would use the same template as for an internal review, and added that the Authority was capable of undertaking the reviews and would therefore save the money. Councillor Tinley wished to correct her comments as she believed that a new template and process was being bought, and was not aware that the process had been undertaken previously. Councillor Di Clements stated that she was unaware that the review had previously been undertaken by an independent facilitator, and that it was useful to know. Councillor Clements then Moved Option 3 in regards to the Chief Executive review and Option 2 in regards to the Chief Officers review; Seconded by Councillor David Simpson. The Chair Moved an Amendment that Option 2 be selected in regards to the Chief Executive review; Seconded by Councillor Tessa Hodgson. The vote for the Amendment, undertaken by way of a roll-call, was carried. The votes were recorded as follows: For the Motion: Councillors Paul Miller, Tessa Hodgson, Anji Tinley and Jacob Williams [4] Against the Motion: Councillor Di Clements and David Simpson [2] [Above vote corrected by Minute 3 at 30 April 2024 Senior Staff Committee] The Vote for the Substantive Motion, undertaken by way of a roll-call, was carried. The votes were recorded as follows: For the Motion: Councillors Paul Miller, Tessa Hodgson, Di Clements, David Simpson, Anji Tinley and Jacob Williams [6] RESOLVED (a) That Option 2 for the Chief Executive review be approved as follows: Commence a review facilitated by an independent facilitator utilising the PCC template. Cost £1,200 (b) That Option 2 for the Chief Officers review be approved as follows: Commence a performance review approach undertaken by the Chief Executive then cascaded through Directors to their direct reports utilising the PCC templates. No Additional Cost but training provided by Head of HR
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED That the public be excluded from the meeting in accordance with Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972 as it involves the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in Paragraph 12 of Part 4 of Schedule 12A to the Act; and that the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information. The webcast was then paused. Having convened in private session under the terms of Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972, the Chief Executive outlined the details around the current VSS applications, with questions answered by both the Chief Executive and the Head of HR. The webcast was then resumed. Councillor Anji Tinley sought clarification in regards to the roles that were due to be terminated, and whether they would be redistributed across the Authority to other staff. She also wished for confirmation that none of the 21 applicants would be reappointed. In response, the Chief Executive explained that in some cases there was a degradation on service delivery, as listed in the savings measures agreed by Council on 7 March 2024. In regards to individual savings measures, the Chief Executive commented that they would be subject to an individual decision by Cabinet or the Executive. He also explained that for the other roles that had been determined by the Senior Leadership Team, there was no intention to reinvent another post to do the function that was already being delivered. In regards to reappointments, the Head of HR explained that there was provision for people to be reemployed by the Authority, after a period of 12 months. Councillor Tinley sought clarification as to whether people could only apply after the 12 month period. The Head of HR confirmed this to be the case. The Recommendation was Moved by Councillor Paul Miller; Seconded by Councillor Jacob Williams. The vote, undertaken by a show of hands, was carried. RESOLVED That the report be noted.
The Committee considered a report by the Head of Human Resources which outlined the programme of activity to reduce workforce cost, and the savings required to support the 2024-25 budget. The Chief Executive introduced the report and referred to the £13.5 million budget savings required, as a result of the recently approved budget, and that a fair amount of staff would be lost as a result. He stated that the report outlined 21 individuals to be released from their roles, as a result of the Voluntary Severance Scheme (VSS), as well as a small number of cases, which had not yet been concluded. If approved, the Chief Executive explained that the savings in relation to the 21 posts were predicted to be approximately £329,341. He highlighted two further cases that required Senior Staff Committee agreement, and potentially Council agreement, would be brought to the Committee at a later date. The Chair sought clarification that the savings made against the Scheme would count towards the £1 million savings target as agreed at Council on 7 March 2024. The Chief Executive confirmed this to be the case, subject to implementation. The Recommendation was Moved by Councillor Paul Miller; Seconded by Councillor David Simpson. Councillor Jacob Williams referred to the posts within each Directorate that would cease, and questioned how the Committee could oversee the process without knowing which roles were being referred to. The Chair stated that the Committee did not have anything to do with the delivery of the Scheme below a certain threshold of remuneration, only to set up and approve the rules, and believed that the delivery of the Scheme was the responsibility of the Chief Executive. Councillor Williams suggested that more detail should be provided within the report, in order for the Committee to oversee, even if the report was only to note. The Chief Executive stated that he was not able to bring the report of the two VSS cases that required Committee approval, as the consultation had not yet been completed. He stated that he hoped to do so in April to then progress the discharge of the two Officers. He commented that the current report was brought before the Committee for information only, in order to provide the context on the matter, ahead of the meeting in April. The Chief Executive then referred to the process around service delivery and stated that he was happy to expand on the details of the outlined cases. Councillor Jacob Williams then Moved that the public be excluded from the meeting to discuss the details of the outlined VSS cases; Seconded by Councillor Anji Tinley. The vote, undertaken by way of a roll-call, was carried. The votes were recorded as follows: For the Motion: Councillors Paul Miller, Tessa Hodgson, Di Clements, David Simpson, Anji Tinley and Jacob Williams [6] RESOLVED That the public be excluded from the meeting in accordance with Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972 as it involves the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in Paragraph 12 of Part 4 of Schedule 12A to the Act; and that the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information. The webcast was then paused. Having convened in private session under the terms of Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972, the Chief Executive outlined the details around the current VSS applications, with questions answered by both the Chief Executive and the Head of HR. The webcast was then resumed. Councillor Anji Tinley sought clarification in regards to the roles that were due to be terminated, and whether they would be redistributed across the Authority to other staff. She also wished for confirmation that none of the 21 applicants would be reappointed. In response, the Chief Executive explained that in some cases there was a degradation on service delivery, as listed in the savings measures agreed by Council on 7 March 2024. In regards to individual savings measures, the Chief Executive commented that they would be subject to an individual decision by Cabinet or the Executive. He also explained that for the other roles that had been determined by the Senior Leadership Team, there was no intention to reinvent another post to do the function that was already being delivered. In regards to reappointments, the Head of HR explained that there was provision for people to be reemployed by the Authority, after a period of 12 months. Councillor Tinley sought clarification as to whether people could only apply after the 12 month period. The Head of HR confirmed this to be the case. The Recommendation was Moved by Councillor Paul Miller; Seconded by Councillor Jacob Williams. The vote, undertaken by a show of hands, was carried. RESOLVED That the report be noted.
Councillors must say when they have a personal link to something being discussed, such as a job, a property or a family member. A prejudicial interest is one strong enough that the councillor usually leaves the room and takes no part.
Declarations are read from the minutes once they are published.
Lists the council's current councillors only. Co-opted members, officers and former councillors aren't shown.