Agenda item

To consider the report of the Managing Director.

Consideration was given to the report of the Managing Director.

 

The Managing Director spoke in detail to the report which sought approval for a new Operating Model and Working Arrangements for the Council.  This was a significant decision for Blaenau Gwent - the choice was whether to revert to how the Council operated previously as the country emerged from lockdown and was recovering from the pandemic or to take an ambitious step forward and learn from experience and response over the last 12 months and demonstrate community leadership by creating an agile and modern organisation.

 

It was noted that the new working arrangements would involve a move to an agile working model for the workforce on a permanent basis based upon the learning and experiences of how the Council had operated over last 12 months.  This would require a decision to permanently vacate the Civic Centre and release the land for regeneration purposes, create a new Democratic Hub at the General Offices for formal council business and create a network of Community Hubs co-located with libraries. 

 

These proposals had been developed over a number of months and the Managing Director outlined the sequence of reports that had been presented to Council since July 2020 (paragraphs 2.5 – 2.7 of the report) which had concluded in November 2020 with a report which recommended that the position previously agreed at Council, to proceed with acquisition of Festival Park, be left to private investors who had expressed an interest in the site to take it forward but that the Council should take forward the other aspects agreed at Council (October 2020) to develop the democratic facility at the General Offices, Community Hubs in town centres, and vacate and demolish the Civic Centre.  It was pointed out that capital allocations to undertake this work had previously been agreed by Council.

 

Since the decision of Council in November, the Member Working Group had worked with officers and Trade Union representatives to develop a model for the new working arrangements, based on agile working, which would allow the organisation to operate out of its remaining offices at Anvil Court, ViTCC, General Offices and other appropriate Council buildings.  These proposals were detailed in Section 5 of this report. 

 

There were a number of benefits associated with the operation of an agile working model and these included:

 

-      The creation of flexible and agile working arrangements for staff and it was proposed because there would be contractual changes that an allowance would be provided for home and agile workers.

-      Based on evidence there would be an improved work/life balance reducing the daily commute and continuation of the high level of productivity.

-      Reduction in days lost to sickness absence.

 

The Managing Director recognised that the arrangement would not suit all staff and the model would allow for adjustments to be made for those members of staff who may be categorised as either home or agile workers but who would be unable to do this on a permanent basis due to personal circumstances.

 

As part of the proposal, there would be a need to continue to invest in ICT infrastructure and this would include investment and upgrading of the telephony system to enable work to be carried out in agile and mobile way and to improve contact arrangements for officers and service users.

 

In terms of benefits for the Council:

 

-      Improved civic front door for the Council and council business.

-      More attractive as an employer – employment opportunities for those people who welcomed the opportunity to work flexibly.

-      Reduce costs for buildings and maintenance. Maximisation and more efficient use of the remaining buildings.

-      Decarbonisation – the proposal would have a significant positive impact on the ambition to become a net carbon Council by 2030.

-      The proposal supported various aspects of the Bridging the Gap Programme, Medium Term Financial Strategy, Corporate Plan and Decarbonisation and Commercial Strategies.

-      The creation of strong leadership within the community which would demonstrate building back a new and better normal as recovery from the pandemic continued.

 

The benefits to the residents and communities were:

 

-      Community Hubs would form a key part of the new arrangements which, would enable residents to have local access to the Council and improved access to the organisation and its services.  This would allow resources to be invested into front line services.

-      The proposal would unlock the next phase of regeneration in Ebbw Vale with the clearance of the Civic Centre site.

 

In terms of formal Council business when this was able to resume in person, would take place at the Democratic Hub and facilities would be provided for Members as they were previously provided at the Civic Centre. Meetings would continue using the Microsoft Teams platform to enable a blended approach to meetings for Members and officers to either physically or remotely attend. It was noted that remote access to meetings and the broadcasting of meetings live, was now a requirement of the Local Government and Elections (Wales) Bill.

 

The financial case for the proposals were included within the report at paragraph 5.1.  It was noted that a capital investment would be required and the total capital costs of the development of the Democratic and Community Hubs, decommissioning / demolition of the Civic Centre and refurbishment of Anvil Court / VITCC were estimated to cost £1.2m.

 

The Council had already agreed capital funding of £180,000 to support the delivery of the Democratic Hub and Community Hubs and had agreed that the costs for the demolition of the Civic Centre would be offset by capital receipts generated from the sale of the site which, was estimated to achieve in excess of £650,000.  It was proposed that the remaining capital requirement be funded by a contribution from revenue, utilising the Transformation budget for 2021/2022.  In addition, revenue savings of £1.4m were projected over a 5-year period would help significantly with commitment to reduce carbon output as an organisation.

 

The Managing Director concluded by advising that Option 1 was the preferred option i.e. that Council approved the new Operating Model based on Agile Working, Democratic Hub and Community Hubs, and confirmed work could now proceed to decommission the Civic Centre. 

 

The views of Members were, thereupon, sought (summarised below) and were responded to by the Managing Director/Corporate Director of Regeneration & Community Services/Chief Officer Resources/Interim Chief Officer Commercial:

 

-      Reference was made to the requirement to adhere to the GDPR regulations and the need for confidentiality to be maintained whilst staff were working from home and concern was expressed that this did not form part of the ‘risks’ identified within the report and this would be particularly relevant when there would be a return to ‘normal’ and people were allowed to visit each at home.  In addition, since it was now one year since agile working had been introduced due to the pandemic and the need to work from home, a Member enquired whether a further staff survey would be undertaken to ascertain their views.

 

The Managing Director confirmed that confidentiality had not been raised as a specific risk because it was a risk in whichever manner that staff worked i.e. it was not a heightened risk because of this proposal and already formed part of the Corporate Risk Register as part of the previous working arrangements.  However, it was an important point and confidentiality was about all parties maintaining confidentiality in respect of issues that were not within the public domain and all officers and Members had a duty to maintain this.  With regard to GDPR, these were specific regulations that related to personal data and the need for compliance wherever or however officers worked.  The Managing Director reiterated that whilst these were important issues they were risks that were already carried by the organisation and had not specifically been identified within the report because the risk would not significantly increase.  However, the importance of these issues would continue to be emphasised to staff irrespective of which operating model was adopted.

 

The Managing Director continued by stating that the results of the staff survey which had been conducted last autumn had been shared as part of the report, and subject to the decision taken at Council, staff engagement and consultation would be extremely important and further engagement and consultation would be undertaken in conjunction with the Trade Unions going forward.

 

The Member pointed out that offices were controlled environments and expressed his concern that there was a greater chance and heightened risk of mistakes occurring when staff had to work from home or from other venues such as libraries/community hubs.

 

The Managing Director advised that unfortunately on occasions, data and security breaches had occurred when staff had been working in a controlled environment.  In terms of the Community Hubs, arrangements would be made for discussions of a personal or confidential nature to take place in a private environment and not within the wider library open setting.

 

-      The Leader of the Labour Group agreed with his colleague that if work was undertaken in a variety of settings then the risk in relation to confidentiality and GDPR was surely enhanced.  He continued by placing on record his disappointment that this major, significant report had not been considered as part of the scrutiny process (it was noted that in November an offer had been made to establish a Cross Party Member Working Group to discuss this issue which would report back to scrutiny).  He felt that this report was opportunistic and expressed his concern that the report had been received late and Members had to receive a Group briefing without sight of this information.  In addition, it had been discovered a few weeks previously that staff had already been requested to empty their desks at the Civic Centre prior to a decision being taken on the proposed future working arrangements and said that this was unforgiveable.

 

With regard to the report, the Leader of the Labour Group said that this could be viewed in different ways, whilst chief officers and the leadership felt that it was ambitious and forward looking, it could be and elements could be useful in the future, however, the country was still in a state of flux.  Only two days previously, the country had marked the one-year anniversary of the start of the pandemic and going forward in another year there would be a greater understanding of the implications of the virus/pandemic and whether there could be a possible return to a physical meeting environment.

 

The Leader of the Labour Group continued by stating that this model of working (which had already been alluded to) may not suit some staff.  Stories had been heard throughout the course of the pandemic about people suffering with mental health issues and posed the following questions:

 

·        Did the trade unions totally support the report?

 

·        Reference was made to the Workplace Transformation Programme that had taken place at Anvil Court and the Civic Centre in 2015 at a cost of £2.5m.  A proportion of this cost (£750,000) had been funded via prudential borrowing.  What was the current status of these repayments on the sum borrowed and should the Civic Centre demolished and the land sold, what would be implications on this prudential borrowing i.e. would it need to be re-paid in full?

 

The Managing Director advised in terms of scrutiny for this and previous reports had been submitted directly to Council as these were issues for all Members to scrutinise and political groups had been given the opportunity to be briefed on the current report both prior to and post the report being published. 

 

With regard to the staff decanting the Civic Centre, no instruction had been provided for this to take place – preparation work for the decant was being planned in the background and this work had been approved by Council last November. 

 

In terms of the Trade Unions – the Branch Secretary and Branch Chair of the Joint Trade Unions were members of the Working Group and had been involved in the discussions around the operating model and were supportive of the proposals. The Managing Director added that if the unions had been in attendance at Council they would agree that it was imperative going forward that strong engagement and consultation took place with the trade unions and staff to ensure that those staff who had difficulties with this way of working were not compelled to do so going forward.

 

The Chief Officer Resources at this juncture advised that she would be unable to confirm specifically if the prudential borrowing for the Workplace Transformation Programme had been re-paid because individual loans were not highlighted due to loans being regularly repaid and new loans taken out at better rates.  However, she was able to confirm that when the original prudential borrowing for the Workplace Transformation Programme had been taken out, the relevant level of savings had been identified to repay that loan and, therefore, there should be no additional impact on the council taxpayer should the proposal proceed.

 

The Leader of the Labour Group disagreed with this response and advised that at that time a report had been presented for the Workplace Transformation Programme costing £2.5m it had been pointed out that loans had to be repaid, and so inevitably some of this debt would fall on the council taxpayer. 

 

He continued by stating that he had additional concerns regarding Item No. 41 – Ebbw Valley Railway which alluded to an increase in commuters using trains but the premise of this report was requesting the opposite i.e. for people to remain at home. The Leader of the Labour Group felt that this was a rushed judgement because there could be implications and a change of direction for local government depending on the outcome of the Welsh Government elections on 6^th May, 2021.  In addition, there had been a considerable amount of disharmony over time regarding Anvil Court and this report would tie the Council into another long term arrangement.  He concluded by stating that this matter should be revisited in 12 months which, would provide the opportunity for the report to be scrutinise in light of the knowledge of the political outlook in Wales, knowledge of the pandemic and the impact and implications that the virus was and continued to have on residents.  The Leader of the Labour Group advised that he would propose an alternative recommendation at the appropriate juncture.

 

-      Reservations were expressed regarding the removable desk provision and how this would be achieved for blended meetings when, other local authority meeting venues had been set up for blended meetings with fixed desks and the relevant I.T. infrastructure.  Concern was also expressed that the rooms at the General Offices would no longer be available for hire and this would result in a loss of rental income for the facility.

 

The Member continued by referring to the new lease for Anvil Court and the comments that had been made in the Group briefing that ‘the Council would be in a strong position to obtain lower rent’.  She enquired how this could be achieved when there would only be one building available for office accommodation. She added that the report should have been scrutinised in depth as there were numerous questions that remained unanswered and in order that a directive could have been given to officers to investigate other accommodation options including building a purpose built facility at the rear of the General Offices.

 

The Managing Director advised that the business case that had been considered by Council in November had contained an option to construct a new purpose built office but it was felt that this was not a cost effective option at that time and Council had not instructed officers to carry out any further work on this particular option.

 

In reply to a comment, the Managing Director advised that she had made a statement at the Group briefing that officers had not received a directive to explore building on other sites because at that time Members had not wanted to pursue a new build.  However, this was still a valid option contained within the business case irrespective of the decision that had been taken relating to Festival Park.

 

In response to the question relating to Anvil Court, the Corporate Director of Regeneration & Community Services advised that he had stated that the Council would be in a ‘strong’ position to negotiate with the landlord not a ‘better’ position. It was noted that the discussion relating to the lease of Anvil Court had commenced early as there were several more years to run on the existing lease and this would allow for alternative provision to be identified should an agreement not be reached.

 

The Interim Chief Officer Commercial confirmed that work was currently underway to relocate the Democratic Hub to the General Offices but given the current national regulations, social distancing was still required. Some Committees under a social distanced landscape would only be able to be held in one venue, and investigations were taking place to set up one of the rooms permanently that would be used as a main Committee venue.  A mobile delegate system had also been acquired for use at these meetings. 

 

The Member expressed her concern regarding the timing of the proposal and that accommodation was being provided for 42 Councillors whilst there could potentially be a reduction in the number of Councillors following the next election due to the Local Government Boundary Review and this may incur unnecessary expenditure.

 

-      Another Member referred to significant refurbishments that had taken place at the Civic Centre including the Leader’s Office during this term of office and said that surely before this investment was made the chief officers and senior Members must have realised that they were ‘throwing good money after bad’ given that there had been plans in existence since 2012 to use the General Offices.  He concluded by stating that no forethought had been gone into these proposals.

 

The Leader of the Council referred to the expenditure on the Civic Centre and stated that several reports had been considered which had been agreed in September, October and November to progress with the Democratic Hub and Community Hub and the November report which contained a statement that had not been challenged, alluded to the fact that the Civic Centre only had an estimated shelf life of 4 years remaining.  He pointed out that if he had been advised in 2017 that the building had a limited shelf life, the work would not have been undertaking on the former Mayor’s Parlour and Dining Room and an alternative solution identified.

 

He continued by advising, however, that the bulk of the expenditure had been incurred was to rectify outdated electrical work.  As a result, a room had been created for the Leader and a more acceptable working space created for the Leader’s support officer.  In addition, the Labour Group for the first time had been provided with an office and meeting space and the former Mayor’s Dining Room had been turned into a meeting room for the benefit of every Councillor and officer to use.  It was noted that since the 2014 workplace transformation, meeting accommodation had been at a premium.  The alternative had been to leave these rooms empty or use them for the collective benefit of everyone including the Labour Group.

 

For the first time, when distinguished guests such as Ministers visited the authority they were able to meet at the Civic Centre rather than travelling to the General Offices due to the general condition of the democratic area – therefore, this was not lavish expenditure in reality. 

 

In terms of the report, the Leader of the Council concluded by stating that officers had carried out the decision that Council had taken in November and were now presenting their findings.

 

-      It was acknowledged that the Civic Centre was no longer fit for purpose but concern was expressed that the Community Hubs should feed into a central office and this was also required for staff cohesion.  The Member was concerned that local government was deteriorating and felt that residents would not be able to obtain services via the Community Hubs and would feel ostracised. Whilst he saw the merits of disposing of the Civic Centre he asked whether the merits of constructing a new headquarters could be investigated which, would be far more effective.

 

The Managing Director again referred to the business case that was considered last year and pointed out that the cost of creating a new build would require a significant investment beyond the receipt that would be received for the Civic Centre.

 

-      A Member in his opinion said that the report was about reducing costs and meeting government targets.  It did not consider the practicalities of everyday life and the type of accommodation (small terraced housing) that most families in the area lived in.  He pointed out that the reason the virus had spread so quickly during the height of the pandemic was because people were visiting each other’s homes because they lived in close knit communities.  Most staff did not have space available within their homes for a separate office or suitable housing for working from home. He felt that far more consideration should have been given to the report including scrutiny and other options considered around Anvil Court and the General Offices. 

 

The Managing Director advised that there was an acceptance that this working model would not suit all staff and appropriate adjustments could be made if staff were unable to work from home on a permanent basis.

 

-      Another Member agreed with the principle of the idea of Community Hubs however, he alluded to the Council’s portfolio of properties that were available in and around town centres that could potentially be suitable and user friendly to accommodate these hubs and requested that these details be made available to Members.  In addition, the portfolio of properties could be looked at to ascertain if alternative provision could be identified rather than using Anvil Court which whilst not a council owned building, the Council had incurred a considerable amount of expenditure maintaining.

 

The Corporate Director confirmed he would be able to provide information on the portfolio of properties if Council determined but highlighted that if alternative venues were to be investigate this would change the timescales of the proposals.  It was noted that it was proposed that the Community Hubs were co-locate with the libraries.

 

-      The full information had not been provided i.e. what alternatives had the Working Group considered and a Member could not understand the reason why a Cross Party Member Working Group had not been established to consider the new operating model.  Concern was also expressed that trade would be depleted in Ebbw Vale town centre if the Civic Centre closed.  The Member concluded by requesting that the costs of this proposal together with the other alternative options be provided.

 

The Corporate Director advised that the alternative proposals had been included within the business case that had been considered by Council in November.  In reply to a request, the Managing Director confirmed that the business case would be re-circulated to all Members.

 

-      Another Member said that suggestions had been made during the Group briefings that if the agile working model was agreed applicants could be attracted to vacant jobs from all over the country and expressed his concern that if happened this could result in a detrimental impact on the community and the job prospects of the young people within the area.

 

Whilst it had been stipulated that £180,000 capital allocation would be required for the Democratic/Community Hubs, no other specific costs had been supplied in terms of the relocation/moving costs for other departments or indeed details of where they would be located.  In addition, if there was an element of prudential borrowing associated with the Civic Centre, confirmation was required whether the loan would have to be re-paid and the impact this would have on the proceeds of any sale.  He pointed out that potentially the land could take a considerable time to be sold.

 

The Managing Director advised that departments were not relocating - this was a different way of operating and job roles would be designated agile, home or community worker.  All services would have a mixture of homeworking and agile working and when staff worked from an office base they would be working alongside colleagues from other service areas -  it was a corporate operating model.

 

The Chief Officer Resources advised that since the Leader of the Labour Group had asked the original question she had made some enquiries regarding prudential borrowing and confirmed that a loan of approximately £700,000 had been taken out for a 25-year period to fund the Workplace Transformation Programme.  Whilst this loan had not been repaid, none of the borrowing that had been undertaken had been specifically linked to the Civic Centre so there were no restrictions/legal barriers on the Council that would result in the building not being able to be demolished and the land sold.

 

In reply to a question regarding social clauses being incorporated within jobs terms and conditions to protect the community and the young people, the Managing Director advised that legislation would prevent this approach.

 

The Corporate Director of Regeneration and Community Services reported that there had been a seismic shift in the employment market and the way in which everyone worked and said that opportunities would open up for young people and existing staff within the global economy which, could now be accessed from home.  He pointed out that there was strong evidence to suggest that people who were homeworking spent their money locally.

 

-      This was an ideal opportunity to bring the Council into the 21^st century and be sustainable going forward.  From the survey results, staff had been very positive about agile working and this would provide inclusivity for those who had varying abilities. This opportunity should be used to the benefit the staff and members of the public.

 

Following a lengthy discussion,

 

The Leader of the Council, thereupon proposed that Option 1 be endorsed.  This proposal was seconded.

 

The Leader of the Labour Group, on behalf of the Labour and Minority Independent Group, thereupon, proposed the following alternative recommendation:

 

To defer the decision for 12 months taking into account the following:

 

·        The need to gain a better understanding of where the country would be in another year with regard to the pandemic.

·        Persistent concerns around the conditions at Anvil Court and the lease arrangement.

·        Possible change of political direction at the Senedd regarding the future of local government.

·        The lack of proper scrutiny on the project, particularly on the impact of homeworking on staff.

 

This alternative proposal was seconded.

 

A recorded vote was, therefore, requested.

 

In Favour of the alternative proposal – Councillors P. Baldwin, D. Bevan, M. Cross, P. Edwards, L. Elias, K. Hayden, M. Holland, H. McCarthy, J. Millard, J. C. Morgan, K. Pritchard, T. Sharrem, T. Smith, S. Thomas, H. Trollope, D. Wilkshire, B. Willis, L. Winnett.

 

Against the alternative proposal – Councillors J. Collins, M. Cook, N. Daniels, D. Davies, G. A. Davies, G. L. Davies, M. Day, D. Hancock, S. Healy, J. Hill, W. Hodgins, J. Holt, J. Mason, C. Meredith, M. Moore, J. P. Morgan, L. Parsons, G. Paulsen, K. Rowson, B. Summers, B. Thomas, G. Thomas, J. Wilkins.

 

The vote on the alternative proposal was not carried.

 

It was, therefore, proposed and seconded that Option 1 (preferred option) be endorsed and approved.  As no Member had abstained from voting, a further recorded vote was not required and Option 1 was carried.

 

RESOLVED, subject to the foregoing, that the report be accepted and Option 1 be endorsed, namely that the new Operating Model based on Agile Working, Democratic Hub and Community Hubs be approved and work could now proceed to decommission the Civic Centre.