Agenda item

The Mayor, Chief Executive and Section 151 Officer will be in attendance to discuss progress made on the Council’s Transformation journey.

The Chair welcomed the Mayor to the meeting and invited him to deliver his presentation.

The Mayor’s presentation included the following information:

• Intervention in Children’s Services had come to an end as well as the Best Value Notice intervention. Linked to this the Middlesbrough Voluntary Independent Improvement Board had issued its final report.
• From a financial perspective the Council was previously overspending between £10 and 15 million per year. 
• There had been cuts to frontline staff with the example of Environmental staff being cut from 220 to 70 over a period of 14 years.
• There was no longer an events team or events budget.
• All hard decisions that were viable had been taken in the first year of the administration.
• There had been a shift in funding to more preventative measures with the SHiFT programme being used as an example.
• The Council had received an additional £4million in the Local Government Settlement for 2025-26. This additional money was directed into the Priorities Fund which would be used for transformation projects.
• For some transformation projects investment may not yield financial return but it was deemed the right thing to do.
• It was important that processes across the Council were fit for purpose, as this would improve services for residents.
• One of the first improvements to be made concerned the ACT service and reviewing the Council’s approach to Homelessness.
• Another example of process improvements concerned demolitions which was antiquated and had no on-line component.
• Initiatives that should be celebrated included the SHiFT programme which was jointly funded by the government and the Council. 26 Children were part of the programme with each placement costing £30,000. Aside from the moral and ethical reasons for the programme, SHiFT was also financially sound as the average saving, per child, was £1.27 million.
• In terms of upcoming initiatives, Neighbourhood working would be part of a report submitted to Executive in the near future. This would require more staff on the ground to solve problems for residents such as Link Workers at James Cook University Hospital. There would likely be initial significant costs, but these would contribute to significant savings going forward. 
• Another initiative was the Middlesbrough Priorities Fund which had the aim of investing initially to realise savings later. This would not be part of the base budget. The Priorities Fund was going to contribute to several projects such as the Child Enrichment Team and Ward Funding.
• The Mayor was also keen to launch the Middlesbrough Childhood Guarantee, which would see children achieving 10 opportunities by the time they reached 10 years of age. Those activities would be offered to children who may not ordinarily be able to access them and included swimming lessons and visiting a farm. Two key elements of this initiative were education and workplaces. 
• In terms of Ward Funding, £5,000 would be made available per Councillor, per Ward for projects of their choice if it aligned with a council vision. Applications for funding also needed to be signed off by all other relevant ward councillors. Funding would likely be made available for this in May or June of 2025.
• In terms of Grass Verges, budgets would be increased by 50% and would be targeted in areas of the town that needed it. Housing providers would be approached where relevant to seek match funding.
• Shopfront schemes would focus on district shopping centres rather than town centre shop fronts.
• Other projects the Mayor would be launching included Public Sector capital. This project focussed on working with other public sector bodies to enhance mutual assistance. An example of the Council working with Middlesbrough College to enhance their building programme was given. Working in this way may have had an impact on other issues such as Anti-Social Behaviour.
• Tees Valley Social Care Renegotiations were also part of the Mayor’s priorities which included setting a lower base rate for social care agency staff. This could result in lower costs for local Councils.

The Chair reminded Members that questions should not concern ward matters but should be strategic in nature.

A Member queried why small plots of Council owned land took a long time to sell and were seemingly overpriced. They suggested a system be put in place to speed such things up. The Mayor commented this was possible and recognised that property related matters was one of the Council’s weaker areas. An example was improvements to sale agreements and this type of issue would be a priority for the Council’s strategic housing officer.

In terms of Ward Funding, it was queried when the criteria would be available and if the new funding would replace the existing Small Scheme Allocation. It was confirmed the criteria for Ward Funding would be released on the 23 April with the relevant Executive papers and that Ward Funding would not replace the Small Scheme Allocation.

A Member stated he was supportive of initiatives to reintroduce some kind of Council owned Housing given the length of waiting lists for social housing. The Mayor stated new processes, such as an enforced sales process could potentially save significant amounts of time, especially compared to compulsory purchase orders. It was also stated that Council’s moving back into Council Housing after selling its housing stock was rare and would require significant investment if Middlesbrough was to try this.

A discussion took place around selective landlord licensing and the possibility of the Council becoming a letting agent. Benefits of this included incentives that could be offered to prospective landlords.

A Member queried if the Council could influence unfinished structures. It was clarified that no processes were available for such properties given the Council’s limited involvement in this area. It was also clarified that further rollouts of selective landlord licensing was a slow process.

A Member expressed his support of the Mayor’s initiatives but stated Ward Funding may become political and wondered if Community Councils could be involved in the process. The Mayor stated that, as all Councillors were elected to do the best for their communities, politics in the process should be minimal. Involvement of Community Councils may complicate the process, however the Mayor was prepared to engage as many groups as possible to understand where funding was required. It was important to equip Councillors so they could help their communities. If the proposed scheme was successful discussion could take place about how the funding process could be improved going forward.

On the issue of Council IT, a Member suggested reviewing how Council compliments were received as they were currently submitted via a complaints form. It was also important for the Council to adopt a smart approach to how it advertises events and changes to schedules. The Mayor agreed with this and stated the complaints process was being examined for improvements. It was also stated that other processes had been improved as part of more effective service delivery. The Mayor stated an email would be set up to receive improvements to processes and circulated to Members.

In terms of child and youth issues, as outlined in the Mayor’s presentation, it was queried which Executive Member such initiatives would fall under. It was clarified that until further notice this would fall under the Mayor.

A Member queried, in terms of Tees Valley Social Care Renegotiations, if this was mainly regarding recruitment. The Mayor clarified that it was focussed on the rates paid to agency staff and foster carers. The aim of the process was to introduce a level of fairness.

The Chair thanked the Mayor, Chief Executive and Director of Finance for their attendance at the meeting.

AGREED

1. That an email for process improvements be circulated to Members.
2. That the information presented be noted.