Loading
The decisions as the council's minutes record them. A plain-language summary follows once it has been written.
AGREED – That the Customers, Performance, Resources & Governance Scrutiny Committee refer the following decision back to the Executive Board for reconsideration, for the reasons outlined in Appendix 1 of Report COGC/45/25s: (i) That the Hybrid Policy set out in report CE/10/25 be approved with an implementation date of 1 September 2025. (ii) That the Hybrid Policy include an average attendance of 80% located in the office or on site and 20% working at home. (iii) That the Hybrid Policy be reviewed within 12 months and where necessary, or if there is a negative impact upon service performance, report back to Executive Board.
AGREED: (i) That Councillor Pete Howell be appointed as Chair of the Customers, Performance, Resources and Governance Scrutiny Committee. (ii) That Councillor Corin Jarvis be appointed Chair for today’s Meeting in view of the fact that she had been involved in the arrangements and briefed on the preparation and process for a Call in meeting.
Apologies for absence were submitted on behalf of Councillor Alison Tynan.
Members were reminded of their responsibility, under Paragraph 11 of the Members’ Code of Conduct, to declare any interests in relation to any of the business to be transacted at this meeting. The following declarations were made: Agenda item 4 - Call In of Executive Board Decision of 13 May 2025 “Hybrid Working Policy” Councillor Claire Lovett – Personal and non-Prejudicial –The Councillor has a family member that works for the Council. The Councillor remained in the meeting taking part in the discussion and voting thereon. Councillor Beverley Parry Jones - Prejudicial – The Councillor is an Executive Board Member who voted on the matter at the Executive Board Meeting on 13 May 2025. The Councillor remained in the Meeting and claimed an exemption under Paragraph 13 of the Members’ Code of Conduct. The Councillor remained in the Meeting and claimed an exemption under paragraph 14(3)(a).
Decision as recorded
AGREED – That the Customers, Performance, Resources & Governance Scrutiny Committee refer the following decision back to the Executive Board for reconsideration, for the reasons outlined in Appendix 1 of Report COGC/45/25s: (i) That the Hybrid Policy set out in report CE/10/25 be approved with an implementation date of 1 September 2025. (ii) That the Hybrid Policy include an average attendance of 80% located in the office or on site and 20% working at home. (iii) That the Hybrid Policy be reviewed within 12 months and where necessary, or if there is a negative impact upon service performance, report back to Executive Board.
(Members declarations of interest in relation to this item are set out in Minute 3 above) The Chief Officer for Governance and Customer submitted a report (COGC/45/25s) asking Members to consider a call-in notice relating to a decision taken by the Executive Board on 13 May 2025 in relation to the Hybrid Working Policy. She outlined the Committee’s role in deciding whether to refer the Executive Board’s decision back for reconsideration. Councillor Dana Davies, gave a presentation on the reasons for call-in of the Council’s Hybrid Working Policy decision. She highlighted the following points: · Policy Overview. · Importance and Objectives. · Evidence and Staff Feedback. · Wrexham Context and Council Case Studies. · Policy Comparisons (3:2 vs 4:1 office/on site vs home working model) with national studies and risks associated with implementing a 4:1 model. · Policy Impact and Recommendations to the Executive Board. The following points were highlighted during the detailed debate: · Concerns were raised about financial implications, including additional desk and office costs, and staff retention, with national reports indicating that up to 39% of employees may resign if flexible working was reduced. · The Lead Member for Corporate and Customer Services highlighted the broader importance of flexibility in the hybrid working model. A phased approach was proposed, involving senior leadership to assess exemptions, workspace, and IT requirements, allowing for short-term operational adjustments. · Officers advised that further analysis was required to determine space and associated costs. Whilst estimates existed (desks, chairs, ICT equipment totalling approximately £470 per workstation), broader infrastructure costs, such as Wi-Fi upgrades, remained unclear. Existing recruitment and retention strategies would continue, with additional measures under consideration to address ongoing staffing pressures. · Concerns regarding financial oversight were raised, particularly the absence of cost projections. This did not comply with sections 15 and 16 of the Constitution. · Procedural compliance under Section 7 of the Constitution was questioned, as the Executive Board had not included any reasons for not accepting the Scrutiny recommendation. · The Lead Member for Corporate and Customer Services stated the decision reflected staff consultation results, public feedback, and elected Member input, with the aim of enhancing in-office presence and service delivery. Some organisations were requesting staff return to the office full time. · Clarification was sought on how feedback was gathered to ensure broad representation of views. There was a 46% staff response rate from the consultation, and feedback had been passed to departments. · Risks including decline in staff morale and wellbeing, increased sickness levels, and negative impact on staff retention, alongside an absence of comprehensive cost estimates were raised. · Past reports advocating for office modernisation and efficiency savings were seen as conflicting with the proposed Hybrid Working Policy, which would lead to increased commuting and car use, contradicting Council climate goals. · The Chief Executive advised that the Senior Leadership Team expressed openness to refining the hybrid model to improve the balance between staff supervision and wellbeing and service delivery. · Confirmation that Wrexham was the only Authority out of the 13 Councils which responded imposing a mandatory 4:1 hybrid model. Members were concerned that more flexible Hybrid Working Policies in neighbouring Authorities might impact on Wrexham Council’s ability to retain and recruit staff. Furthermore, some candidates were reportedly rejecting offers of employment due to the lack of flexibility that the Hybrid Working Policy offered. · Further discussion focused on Wrexham’s proximity to areas like Shropshire and Merseyside, intensifying competitive employment challenges. · ICT monitoring and productivity expectations prompted debate over potential distrust of staff from heightened scrutiny. A measured approach to workload management was encouraged in light of budget pressures. · Inconsistencies in hybrid work implementation and managerial discretion were highlighted. · Union representatives criticised the consultation’s transparency and lack of financial evidence, citing Section 3 of the Local Government Act. The Executive Board had failed to evidence the reasons to support the change from a 3:2 to a 4:1 model. The Lead Member for Corporate and Customer Services acknowledged that full financial data was unavailable at the decision point. · Governance issues, Nolan principles, Council values and calls for transparency were raised by Union representatives, particularly regarding some of the derogatory comments which had been made about staff at the meeting of the Executive Board which led to staff not feeling supported. · Members asked for clarity on the benefits of a less flexible model, given stable productivity figures. · The Integrated Impact Assessment drew attention to potential disadvantages for women, carers, and disabled staff, with unions stating it had already caused distress. · Senior management faced an increase in administrative duties as a result of the flexible working requests under the new model. · Concerns that the opinions of some Members were outweighing objective evidence on hybrid working. Risks of potential financial burdens exceeding £1 million were cited regarding the implementation of the 4:1 hybrid model. · Recommendations 14 and 15 from the WLGA Financial Review of Wrexham County Borough Council agreed at the meeting of the Executive Board in February 2024 made reference to the Council becoming an “employer of choice”, particularly in relation to the Home Working Policy. This was contradictory to the more recent decision of the Executive Board regarding the Hybrid Working Policy. . AGREED – That the Customers, Performance, Resources & Governance Scrutiny Committee refer the following decision back to the Executive Board for reconsideration, for the reasons outlined in Appendix 1 of Report COGC/45/25s: (i) That the Hybrid Policy set out in report CE/10/25 be approved with an implementation date of 1 September 2025. (ii) That the Hybrid Policy include an average attendance of 80% located in the office or on site and 20% working at home. (iii) That the Hybrid Policy be reviewed within 12 months and where necessary, or if there is a negative impact upon service performance, report back to Executive Board.
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.
The council hasn't recorded attendance for this meeting.
Lists the council's current councillors only. Co-opted members, officers and former councillors aren't shown.