Many local councils are merging, or considering merging http://bit.ly/hplFZB but so far West Berkshire Council has remained silent on this, apart from sharing the odd minor service.
Big savings could be made by slashing senior management - the full costs of the CEO alone would pay for a few more care workers. We could also save hundreds of thousands by halving the number of committees and reducing the number of councillors. So why isn't this on the cards?
WBC's budget simulator didn't allow for mergers to be considered, of course. Is this another case of officers calling the shots while elected members do what they're told? Or is it that councillors are, just a little, addicted to power and status? Someone needs to have a word with that nice Mr Pickles.
I've got an idea.... Why not merge the six Councils in Berkshire under one umbrella, thereby saving wods of money. You could call it something like... oh I dunno... Berkshire County Council?
We could make six chief executives and dozens of other senior executives very happy by giving them early retirement with a massive payout and a gold plated pension.
We could make six chief executives and dozens of other senior executives very happy by giving them early retirement with a massive payout and a gold plated pension.
Unlike us mere mortals they are like the bankers and financial sector. They just can't lose? Heads they win tails we lose?
Well, here are some of the questions I shall be asking any Libdem or Conservative canvassers that turn up on my doorstep over the next few weeks. (In spite of the Libdem's attempts to distance themselves from the coalition government, they are one and the same from my point of view.)
1. What could we save by merging West Berkshire with other unitary authorities? 2. If you don't know, why not? 3. If you do know, what are you doing to implement these savings?
We know, of course, that we could save the salary of one chief executive and his team. I don't particularly care whether it's our own Nick Carter, to be honest (and you're not going to like this) he seems competent enough whenever I've come across him. What I am concerned about is that senior staff will find reasons to protect their jobs while cutting those on the front line, and there's no doubt that they are already cutting front line staff.
That's a low level, in the scheme of things, merger. I think we are talking of full mergers here. Senior and other management to create a single entity from two or three councils. One management structure, one council, one IT department, the list goes on.
That's a low level, in the scheme of things, merger. I think we are talking of full mergers here. Senior and other management to create a single entity from two or three councils. One management structure, one council, one IT department, the list goes on.
Good idea in theory, but would you really want to travel to Slough to discuss a planning application from next door to you for example?
Given the East is mainly urban and we've lots of "free" space in the West I wonder where all the new housing and business developments for the whole county would go? Would we get a say, of course but we'd be one voice amongst six.
A good idea in theory, but I think the negatives outweigh the positives.
Good idea in theory, but would you really want to travel to Slough to discuss a planning application from next door to you for example?
Given the East is mainly urban and we've lots of "free" space in the West I wonder where all the new housing and business developments for the whole county would go? Would we get a say, of course but we'd be one voice amongst six.
A good idea in theory, but I think the negatives outweigh the positives.
I tend to agree. I'm all in favour of sharing more services and such like, but it is important we retain our unitary status as the costs and effectiveness of dual councils (county and district) are will get worse.
Spalding shares it's chief exec with a neighbouring authority but retains it's independence. They also share senior management and other services. User, are there any other consultations at present or coming up about further service sharing?
I tend to agree. I'm all in favour of sharing more services and such like, but it is important we retain our unitary status as the costs and effectiveness of dual councils (county and district) are will get worse.
It would only work if there was one level of council. It must be worth considering a county council with no district councils - especially as Cameron seems keen to encourage 'localism' which should mean a higher level of involvement/power for parish councils.
Not that this means that you would have to go to Slough for a planning meeting (user23 being a WUM again) - just because there is a county council doesn't mean there can't be offices distributed around the county in appropriate places to handle the interface with the public that might be needed on a day to day basis. The principal idea is to share management roles and other HQ functions. Mind you, Pangbourne and Tilehurst residents would probably be relieved that they would have the option to go to Reading rather than all the way to Newbury to see a planner for advice.
It would only work if there was one level of council. It must be worth considering a county council with no district councils - especially as Cameron seems keen to encourage 'localism' which should mean a higher level of involvement/power for parish councils.
Not that this means that you would have to go to Slough for a planning meeting (user23 being a WUM again) - just because there is a county council doesn't mean there can't be offices distributed around the county in appropriate places to handle the interface with the public that might be needed on a day to day basis. The principal idea is to share management roles and other HQ functions. Mind you, Pangbourne and Tilehurst residents would probably be relieved that they would have the option to go to Reading rather than all the way to Newbury to see a planner for advice.
But a Unitary is set up to effectively reduce red tape. I think what User is getting at is if we had a county council, they would make decisions which benefitted the district as a whole, which could lead to West Berkshire getting more developments etc. to reduce the burden on the eastern parts of Berkshire.
But a Unitary is set up to effectively reduce red tape.
Any reduction is by having one council rather than two (council and district) - we have a district council but no county council - if we changed to having a county council but no district council the reduction should be the same, but the management would be shared.
I think what User is getting at is if we had a county council, they would make decisions which benefitted the district as a whole, which could lead to West Berkshire getting more developments etc. to reduce the burden on the eastern parts of Berkshire.
I suppose it is possible, if so is it wrong? If it is so bad should planning not be devolved to an even lower level to ensure that Newbury is not protected at the cost of Thatcham or Tilehurst? Or is it too late for that?
Until recently we had regional planning that set targets for each authority - and WBC is still working to meet the abolished target. At the moment (as far as I can see) we have a void in national/regional planning - and a government that hasn't really worked out how to get homes built - ideologically they seem to want market forces to decide what is built and where, while at the same time talking about passing more control to locals (parishes?) - which could result in no building at all as nimbyism rules.
Without targets there is no reason for a County Council to make decisions favouring one part or another. If we do return to regional planning there is no reason why Berkshire should not remain as six planning areas (or more) for the sake of the setting of targets - but it doesn't mean that we need six sets of upper management for them.
Any reduction is by having one council rather than two (council and district) - we have a district council but no county council - if we changed to having a county council but no district council the reduction should be the same, but the management would be shared.
I suppose it is possible, if so is it wrong? If it is so bad should planning not be devolved to an even lower level to ensure that Newbury is not protected at the cost of Thatcham or Tilehurst? Or is it too late for that?
Until recently we had regional planning that set targets for each authority - and WBC is still working to meet the abolished target. At the moment (as far as I can see) we have a void in national/regional planning - and a government that hasn't really worked out how to get homes built - ideologically they seem to want market forces to decide what is built and where, while at the same time talking about passing more control to locals (parishes?) - which could result in no building at all as nimbyism rules.
Without targets there is no reason for a County Council to make decisions favouring one part or another. If we do return to regional planning there is no reason why Berkshire should not remain as six planning areas (or more) for the sake of the setting of targets - but it doesn't mean that we need six sets of upper management for them.
I get the point you raise. Those in Greenham / Falkland wards have a good right to think they are getting the worst deal as the Conservatives want to build 3,500 in the south of Newbury. I'm all for the parish councils having more say on planning, and it's something I requested we put in the Labour manifesto.
I get the point you raise. Those in Greenham / Falkland wards have a good right to think they are getting the worst deal as the Conservatives want to build 3,500 in the south of Newbury. I'm all for the parish councils having more say on planning, and it's something I requested we put in the Labour manifesto.
The trouble is that no one wants the building to happen close to them - devolve planning down to parishes and nothing would get built. Cameron seems to think that rewarding councils for building more (the more you get built, the more grant funding you get) is the answer. I'm not convinced.
But a Unitary is set up to effectively reduce red tape. I think what User is getting at is if we had a county council, they would make decisions which benefitted the district as a whole, which could lead to West Berkshire getting more developments etc. to reduce the burden on the eastern parts of Berkshire.
That's right. Where do you think councillors from Slough, Windsor, Maidenhead, Wokingham, Reading and Bracknell might vote to put a new industrial development. In their crowded back yard in the East or over here in the West with lots of space to build on and easy access to the A34 and M4.
Our councillors would have a say, but they'd be outnumbered six to one.
I suppose it is possible, if so is it wrong? If it is so bad should planning not be devolved to an even lower level to ensure that Newbury is not protected at the cost of Thatcham or Tilehurst? Or is it too late for that?
Lots of excellent points in your post, Blackdog. As I understand it the Localism Bill will transfer much more say over planning to local communities. Attempting to lump Lambourn in with Calcot as one 'community' makes no sense at all. The needs of Newbury are very different from those of the villages that surround it. User's argument that a Berkshire wide authority makes no sense is absolutely right and on the same basis a West Berkshire wide planning authority should be broken down.
Thankfully the coalition government has seen sense on this. You can find out more about the localism bill here:
"The fundamental 'power shift' to local communities intended by the Localism Bill will be applauded by civic societies and other community groups whose skills, knowledge and expertise have been undervalued for too long. With the right safeguards and support Civic Voice relishes the opportunities being provided for communities to take the lead in planning and shaping the future of the places where we all live."
Meanwhile, I'm sure we all agree that significant economies of scale can be achieved by merging administrative and support functions while at the same time ensuring that local decision making is enhanced. What's concerning me is that this isn't even being discussed here in West Berkshire. Except on this forum, of course. (I tried to raise it on the Newbury Today forum and my account was deleted!)
Why no discussion? Anyone? User? What's the story from Market Street?
I suppose it is possible, if so is it wrong? If it is so bad should planning not be devolved to an even lower level to ensure that Newbury is not protected at the cost of Thatcham or Tilehurst? Or is it too late for that?
Lots of excellent points in your post, Blackdog. As I understand it the Localism Bill will transfer much more say over planning to local communities. Attempting to lump Lambourn in with Calcot as one 'community' makes no sense at all. The needs of Newbury are very different from those of the villages that surround it. User's argument that a Berkshire wide authority makes no sense is absolutely right and on the same basis a West Berkshire wide planning authority should be broken down.
Thankfully the coalition government has seen sense on this. You can find out more about the localism bill here:
"The fundamental 'power shift' to local communities intended by the Localism Bill will be applauded by civic societies and other community groups whose skills, knowledge and expertise have been undervalued for too long. With the right safeguards and support Civic Voice relishes the opportunities being provided for communities to take the lead in planning and shaping the future of the places where we all live."
Meanwhile, I'm sure we all agree that significant economies of scale can be achieved by merging administrative and support functions (finance, personnel, IT and the rest) while at the same time ensuring that local decision making is enhanced. It would be easy to imagine that senior managers are just protecting their backs.
What's concerning me is that this isn't even being discussed here in West Berkshire. Except on this forum, of course. (I tried to raise it on the Newbury Today forum and my account was deleted!)
Why no discussion? Anyone? User? What's the story from Market Street?
I believe merging administrative and support functions was tried between, roughly, 2000 and 2005ish.
I don't think anyone is suggesting the merger of disparate operations - just merging common functions across the six UAs. Support functions by their nature need to be located within reach of those being supported - but there must be scope to save significantly by merging the management of common services across Berkshire and taking advantages of economies of scale in procurement.
Lots of excellent points in your post, Blackdog. As I understand it the Localism Bill will transfer much more say over planning to local communities. Attempting to lump Lambourn in with Calcot as one 'community' makes no sense at all. The needs of Newbury are very different from those of the villages that surround it. User's argument that a Berkshire wide authority makes no sense is absolutely right and on the same basis a West Berkshire wide planning authority should be broken down.
Following this argument to its logical conclusion planning should be devolved to ever smaller areas until you get to individual plots - at some point you have to decide on an area. The Localism Bill has 'parish or neighbourhood' decision making - but still promotes local plans to decide where housing etc should go. Who will have the final say on, for instance, the Sandleford site - the local planning authority who sees the need for many more houses in the area or the local residents who don't care where the housing goes as long as it's not near them?
"The fundamental 'power shift' to local communities intended by the Localism Bill will be applauded by civic societies and other community groups whose skills, knowledge and expertise have been undervalued for too long. With the right safeguards and support Civic Voice relishes the opportunities being provided for communities to take the lead in planning and shaping the future of the places where we all live."
Here's another quotation:
Liz Peace, Chief Executive of the British Property Federation added:
"There has been a lot of hysterical comment on the impact of the localism agenda on the property industry. The Bill has gone some way to countering this and whilst there is still much that remains to be resolved we are re-assured by the emphasis that the Government is now placing on growth and the way in which localism is to be used as the vehicle for encouraging communities to opt, not for nimbyism, but for the sustainable development of both the homes and commercial property that our economy so desperately needs."
Not exactly resounding support from the builders - I suspect this was the most positive comment they could find.
Following this argument to its logical conclusion planning should be devolved to ever smaller areas until you get to individual plots -
Yes, well I'm sure the government will have thought this through very carefully. My point was that one objection to council mergers - that councillors in Slough would decide what happens in Newbury - probably hadn't been properly thought through.
I'm still not clear why WBC seems so keen not to debate merging support services across the board and drastically reducing the number of senior managers is instead focusing on cutting the front line. I'm sure that's not what Mr Pickles - or the rest of us - wants.
It's pretty much inevitable that we'll see much deeper cuts to front line services after 5th May, incidentally. The councils which have cut deepest so far don't have elections this year.
I don't think anyone is suggesting the merger of disparate operations - just merging common functions across the six UAs. Support functions by their nature need to be located within reach of those being supported - but there must be scope to save significantly by merging the management of common services across Berkshire and taking advantages of economies of scale in procurement.
Yes, merging common functions with another organisation based locally was tried before.
I believe it was supposed to last 25 years but one party withdrew after around only 5.
Yes, merging common functions with another organisation based locally was tried before.
I believe it was supposed to last 25 years but one party withdrew after around only 5.
It's a bit worrying that Market Street's finest can't come up with better arguments than this.
I'll try to be gentle. There are two big flaws in the 'we tried it before but it didn't work' objection to change (I think it's about 3 on the top 100 ways to try to block change). Can you guess what they are?
I did. Councillors from Slough, Maidenhead and Bracknell deciding on whether your neighbour can build his extension or not.
By the way, "We tried it before but it didn't work, so let's do it again" doesn't seem the best course of action, to me.
It's pretty much decided by the planners before any item is called to council commitee anyway but of course there would be local councillors attending the planning meeting so pretty much the same as now I suspect.
It's pretty much decided by the planners before any item is called to council commitee anyway but of course there would be local councillors attending the planning meeting so pretty much the same as now I suspect.
Planners based in Reading, Slough, Maidenhead or Bracknell I would have thought, so nothing like now or under Berkshire County.
Planners based in Reading, Slough, Maidenhead or Bracknell I would have thought, so nothing like now or under Berkshire County.
Why should the planners not be in Newbury? Just because six UAs are replaced by one (called Berkshire) it doesn't mean that every WBC employee would disappear from Newbury.
I did. Councillors from Slough, Maidenhead and Bracknell deciding on whether your neighbour can build his extension or not.
At present we have two planning committees for West Berkshire (Eastern and Western Area Committees) - under a countywide UA there would still be multiple committees covering various areas and dominated by councillors from the area in question.
Under the localism bill everything will change anyway - devolving decisions to parished and neighbourhoods if you believe the spin.
By the way, "We tried it before but it didn't work, so let's do it again" doesn't seem the best course of action, to me.
We'd achieve virtually nothing - powered flight, climbing Everest, putting up shelves - if we worked on that basis.
There are two obvious reasons why 'we tried it before but it didn't work' is a bad argument against change:
1. the first time it might have been done badly 2. conditions will have changed since then
I still haven't heard any good reasons why West Berks Council shouldn't look at large scale mergers of services and management structures. There's a lot of pressure from central government for them to do so: http://bit.ly/em1oWD
There needs to be open debate about this before the 5 May elections.
We'd achieve virtually nothing - powered flight, climbing Everest, putting up shelves - if we worked on that basis.
There are two obvious reasons why 'we tried it before but it didn't work' is a bad argument against change:
1. the first time it might have been done badly 2. conditions will have changed since then
I still haven't heard any good reasons why West Berks Council shouldn't look at large scale mergers of services and management structures. There's a lot of pressure from central government for them to do so: http://bit.ly/em1oWD
There needs to be open debate about this before the 5 May elections.[b][/b]
Open debate? If it involves curtailing some of the power of WBC and lowering the burden to taxpayers then that will be dead in the water then?
Open debate? If it involves curtailing some of the power of WBC and lowering the burden to taxpayers then that will be dead in the water then?
Clearly it won't be debated unless it's raised by the public - neither of the parties whose government is responsible for achieving the local authority cuts seems to have this issue on their agenda. Do be sure to ask canvassers who turn up on your doorsteps about it.
But perhaps part of the problem is that it's just too expensive to make senior staff redundant.
You are correct, to make Mr Carter and his chums redundant, would cost a small fortune. You will have to wait until they seek a more lucrative post elsewhere and not replace them. (or employ someone at 1/3 of their current salary) when they have gone.
I am sure that Mr Carter already has his CV prepared to send round the gravy train circuit when Park Way proves to be a substantial success. (Did I really write that?)
You are correct, to make Mr Carter and his chums redundant, would cost a small fortune. You will have to wait until they seek a more lucrative post elsewhere and not replace them. (or employ someone at 1/3 of their current salary) when they have gone.
I am sure that Mr Carter already has his CV prepared to send round the gravy train circuit when Park Way proves to be a substantial success. (Did I really write that?)
Yes strange isn't it? Financial, banking, football,local authorities all have to pay top money to attract the right people supposedly. Yet Hospital doctors, nurses, other essential life saving services including police are all considered to be far less important and therefore paid well below par? Do they not need top people in their organisations?
Also if the essential services do not perform well IE someone dies or is seriously disabled etc from their actions they are held to account. The highest paid especially bankers and local authorities it would appear are accountable to no one. They can mismanage as much as they like and no consequences are paid, often only moving on to another organisation with no loss of earnings or benefits.
Logged
Male
