Report of the Corporate Director, Community
Members received a report which presented the future capacity, skills and ambition required at Director level within the Community Directorate, following a consultation process to restructure the Director/senior management tier, to ensure that the Community Directorate was resilient and fit for purpose.
The Corporate Director, Community, outlined the content of the report which was before Members due to the proposed salary level of the new posts, and explained that the current structure was filled with postholders on either an interim or acting up basis. The new structure for the directorate comprised four new Director roles each of which had been evaluated via the Hays job evaluation process as at grade D2 and were comparable to other London Boroughs. The new structure also included a Chief Planning Officer and this post had been graded as D1.
A Member questioned the financial implications of the proposal and sought clarification in terms of the difference in cost of the existing and proposed structure as it did not appear to have included the cost of the Chief Planning Officer. The Corporate Director advised that the overall cost could be contained with the directorate’s budget and was approximately £1m, including the Corporate Director’s salary, with £823,000 of that for the four new Director posts and Chief Planning Officer. The Member expressed concern that an additional £100,000 was being proposed for senior management posts indicating that his preference would be for that money to be spent on services, such as a free bulky waste collection. The Chief Executive advised the Panel that the proposed structure would cost less than was currently being expended.
A Member stated that he disliked some of the role profile titles and that they should be clear in terms of what skills the Council was looking for from potential postholders, for example, an officer to drive forward regeneration. The regeneration programme required an emphasis on development and commercial experience whilst the local plan would require a different set of skills and he was concerned that it would not be possible to find a postholder that would bring both. The Corporate Director advised that the Director of Regeneration and Sustainable Development would develop a long-term vision but might also have some experience of planning.
The Chief Executive acknowledged the Member’s comments and advised that the Chief Planning Officer would be the Council’s professional lead on planning. The Director role would focus on all aspects of regeneration and place shaping but the postholder might also be a professional planner. He added that whilst the role profile and person specification were important, at senior level, where the role was advertised, how it was recruited to and the judgements of the appointing panel in relation to candidates were just as important.
In terms of equalities, in response to question, the Director of Human Resources and Organisational Development confirmed that the directly affected employee would be guaranteed an interview.
(1) the remuneration packages for the posts of the Director of Environment, Director of Inclusive Economy Leisure & Culture, Director of Sustainable Housing and Director of Regeneration & Sustainable Development all at D2 grade (£109,785 - £123,588) be approved;
(2) it be noted that the roles of Divisional Director Environment & Culture, Divisional Director Commissioning & Commercial, Divisional Director Housing, Divisional Director Regeneration & Planning and Head of Economic Development would be deleted;
(3) the new role profiles for the four new Director posts, as set out in Appendix 2 to the report, be noted and that further consideration be given to the role titles;
(4) the role profile for the Chief Planning Officer be noted and remuneration package at D1 grade (£87,807- £103,527) be approved.
[Note: In accordance with Committee Procedure Rule 19.3 Councillors Paul Osborn, Anjana Patel and Pritesh Patel requested that their vote be recorded as follows: - against Resolutions 1 (due to costs), 2 and 3 and abstain in relation to Resolution 4 (as dependent on the role profile for the Director Regeneration & Sustainable Development].