Agenda item

To consider one motion submitted in accordance with Procedure Rule 12.1:

Collaboration Arrangements with Guildford Borough Council

The deadline for receipt of motions was 5pm on Thursday 5 October 2023. 

54.1    Councillor Martin introduced the Motion submitted by himself, together with Councillors Cockburn and Goodridge. Cllr Martin stated that opposition groups at Waverley and Guildford Borough Councils voted against the collaboration or ‘merger’ at every opportunity and particularly at three Council meetings in July and August 2021 and April 2022. His view was that the governance structure was flawed, the idea of a single administration responsible to two entirely separate councils and political entities was questionable. It was poor even when the two bodies had similar political ideals and would be disastrous at some point in the future when that would not be so. The Business Case had never been clearly laid out, the idea was that each senior management post would be merged with each Joint Executive Head being paid more, but a saving would be generated because of the halving of the posts. Each Authority then had 16 halves of a senior executive working for it. No criticism of staff was meant but the Council was asking too much of them. The theory was that the bigger joint positions would be more attractive and would be easily filled. Reality showed that the Council had instead employed and lost two Section 151 Officers, three Executive Heads of Planning and were now looking for a second Joint Chief Executive in a short period of time.

54.2    Councillor Martin stated his opinion that collaboration savings were less than planned and the negative impact on service levels to members of the public and on staff morale was clear. The Council had an interim Section 151 Officer but had not yet been able to find a permanent replacement. There had been significant resignations, large numbers of interim and agency staff and high staff turnover. Waverley had found itself allied with a failing Council in Guildford which was in financial difficulty and had recently avoided a Section 114 Notice. There were accounting and financial irregularities at Guildford centred around the housing maintenance contract, which the press had asserted amounted to many millions of pounds. Joint Senior Management time was drawn to the Council where the problems were, to the detriment of the other Council.  The Collaboration Risk Register included joint risks 5, 8, 11 and 13 which were all red. The governance structure was not fit for purpose, it was ‘a merger by the back door’ and should be terminated.

54.3    Councillor Goodridge seconded the motion and spoke about his concern that no risk assessment had been made when the decision was taken. Subsequent risk assessments had been created and were regularly reviewed with the intention to reduce red to amber and from amber to green. The most recent report showed officers were recommending that some of the ambers should now be turned to red. The unavailability of Guildford Members to attend the scheduled Joint Governance Committee led to the Committee being adjourned without any consideration of business.

54.5    The Leader countered that the Motion was irresponsible, and objected to the use of the word merger. Local Government was under threat as the Government had persistently reduced funding to local government over the last decade. Although there were many councils that had declared a Section 114 Notice, Guildford had not. The systematic funding reductions across local government were starting to impact even the most prudent of local authorities. The Fair Funding Review and Business Rates reform had not materialised. It was unacceptable that authorities would only receive an annual funding settlement just before Christmas. No help was coming from the Government and councils would have to look after themselves.

54.5    The Leader continued that the Motion committed the Council to a course of action at the same time as requesting a review to establish if that action was appropriate. It failed to recognise the review mechanisms that already existed including the Council’s Scrutiny Committees, which had neglected their own obligations. The Motion ignored the clear benefits of collaboration, no alternative means of achieving revenue savings had been proposed, and the budget gap would not be addressed. Most importantly, the Motion would have a negative impact on the well-being and morale of staff.

54.6    Councillor Merryweather spoke of the financial pressures on councils due to the way the Government had withdrawn funding since 2010. The administration had managed to balance its budget since Covid, in the face of high inflation and those factors would affect the Council for many years to come. The collaboration with Guildford was still on target to deliver £700k of savings annually. 

54.7    Councillor Clark highlighted some words from a statement made by the opposition regarding collaboration previously which included ‘chaos’ ‘falling apart’ ‘surprise and regret’ ‘unnecessary risk’ and ‘uncertainty’. There was no evidence of that, and Councillor Clark argued that the Motion was inconsiderate. The Government had not given local authorities the funding settlement required to maintain services. Waverley was an example to the other ten districts and boroughs across the county for its robustness and financial sustainability under the leadership of the Joint Chief Executive. As a result of the collaboration, the financial irregularities at Guildford had been uncovered and were now being addressed.

54.8    Councillor Austin spoke in favour of the Motion due to the absence of a risk analysis and proper scrutiny when the collaboration was formed in 2021. Guildford and Waverley had poorly performing planning services.  Risk 13 on the Collaboration Risk Register was that expected savings could not be realised, its likelihood was high and its current impact was critical. Taxpayers would expect 100% commitment to each Council, not the chaotic arrangements that had been created and the Council should seek an orderly exit strategy.

54.9    Councillor Cockburn stated that the senior management team did not collaborate, instead they worked together in a merged structure at the top, with an unmerged structure beneath. Staff morale could not be blamed on the Motion. It was understood that working across two authorities was difficult and where time was being spent on Guildford matters, Waverley was neglected.

54.9    Councillor Kiehl cautioned against scaremongering. The Motion was illogical as it sought to both simultaneously review and determined to end the collaboration without any relevant facts or figures giving staff cause to worry for their jobs and affecting their morale.  New recruitment would also be affected. Regarding the recently adjourned Joint Governance Committee, Officers would be asked to revise communications so that Members would have greater notice to attend. The similar Motion at Guildford had failed which demonstrated the commitment of that Council to the collaboration. The Councils had a shared Vision and would continue to be accountable to their own residents, whilst remaining separate democratic and legal entities. The collaboration had saved money and enabled the sharing of expertise on the climate emergency, had achieved economies of scale and had reduced duplication. 

54.10  Councillor Hyman questioned the benefit of Officers undertaking the review at all but would support an amendment for Members to work together in an informal group to conduct the review. Without further information, the Motion was premature.

54.11  Councillor Duce contextualised that the revenue support grant had decreased from £6m per annum in 2010 to zero by 2018. Councils were expected to continue to deliver despite rising inflation; and the those that spoke in opposition had overlooked that the planning service was improving, and instead focused on staff turnover. 

54.12  Councillor Ward explained that the notion of collaboration had been under consideration for many years, with the objective to save money and to defend against proposals for large unitary councils. Councils that already collaborated could instead form the basis of a smaller unitary and choose to align themselves with authorities that were similar. Examples of successful collaboration existed elsewhere; and it was ironic that the opposition group across both Councils had collaborated to oppose collaboration.

54.13  Councillor Mirylees was concerned that should the Motion be carried, both Councils separately would have to decide upon a new structure which would be costly, lead to redundancies, impact on employees health, and take significant time. Future housing and development projects would benefit from collaborative working between two neighbouring councils. Councillor Palmer added that there needed to be a period of stability.

54.14  Councillor Murray argued that the motion was political posturing. Councillor Higgins praised Officers for their dedication and hard work on behalf of residents who were navigating a cost of living crisis, those were the real issues that Councillors should be debating.

54.15  Councillor Williams reminded Members that the Leader of the County Council had previously stated that the status quo structure of local authorities in Surrey was no longer a viable option. Government cuts had caused that, and if the Motion was carried it would dissolve the savings that had been made, which could not then be utilised in achieving Net Zero by 2030.

54.16  Councillor Townsend clarified that the collaboration had not caused staff changes in the planning service. Collaboration would instead bring benefits in Economic Development, Planning and in Procurement. Opposition Members had rejected participation in the cross-party Asset Investment Advisory Board which demonstrated that they were not interested in tackling the challenges the Council faced. Public sector workers felt undervalued, overworked and politicised and that should not be allowed to seep into the Council.

54.19  Councillor Martin exercised his right of reply. All governments since 2005 had reduced support for local government. The role of the opposition was to oppose the administration, and the high resignation rate and low morale were recent phenomenon. The collaboration was not yielding the results that it should. Collaboration in the form of joint procurement on waste contracts would for example be welcome; but the collaboration risk register demonstrated that the collaboration was in difficulty.

The Leader requested a recorded vote, supported by more than 5 Members.

A recorded vote was undertaken by roll call whereupon it was RESOLVED that the Motion be LOST.

For(9)

Councillors Austin, Barker-Lomax, Cockburn, Deanus, Goodridge, Martin, Relleen, Staunton, and Sullivan.

Against(35)

Councillors Beaman, Busby, Clark, Crowe, Davidson, Duce, Fairclough, Follows, Gale, Hesse, Hyman, Higgins, Kiehl, Laughton, Law, Long, Mclean, Merryweather, Mirylees, Morrison, Murray, Nicholson, K. Reed, R. Reed, Paul Rivers, Penny Rivers, Robini, Spence, Steiger, L. Townsend, P. Townsend, Ward, Weldon, White, and Williams. 

Abstentions(0)

Clerk’s note: The Joint Chief Executive and the members of the Joint Management Team left the chamber for the duration of this item.