100-plus council staff face redundancy

More than 100 council workers in Bath have been given letters warning them they could be made redundant.

Bath and North East Somerset Council is having to wield the axe to save tens of millions of pounds over the next few years.

Only two out of its 18 divisions have so far issued so-called 'at risk' letters - which are given to staff whose posts may be declared surplus to requirements, leading to their redundancy.

The authority is facing tough decisions as it works to balance its books for the next financial year as Government funding is reduced and income from sources such as car parks and fees for services is hit by the recession.

Every one of the council's hundreds of services is being put under the microscope between now and the setting of the authority's budget in February.

In its Planning & Transport Services division, managers are looking to reduce the number of posts by the equivalent of 40.9 full-time staff, but this figure includes some posts already vacant.

Some 66 staff - 31 per cent of the division's workforce - have so far received 'at risk' letters.

The division includes the planning department, and the council's transport planners and engineers.

In the Environmental Services division, a reduction of 46.5 FTE posts has been identified but this also includes vacancies and there are in addition staff about to retire.

Here, 51 staff - ten per cent of the division's workforce, which ranges from refuse collectors to environmental health officers - have received letters.

In a statement, the authority said that it had clearly stated last month that "a reduction in posts would be required to help meet the significant financial challenges facing all local authorities, including the scale of the public sector finance deficit, the current and historic shortfalls in central government grant funding, and service specific pressures."

It added: "No final decisions have been taken about the posts that will be made redundant. Consultation is ongoing with staff and unions."

The uncertainty facing council staff in the run-up to Christmas was complicated by errors in the first letters sent to them.

An initial 'at risk' letter suggested the level of redundancy payment each worker might receive.

Then an email was sent explaining that there were errors in the figures, and that the letters would be withdrawn.

When the new letters were issued, some people's projected payments had been halved.

A council spokesman said: "Some employees received at risk letters that contained inaccurate information. The error was discovered on the morning of issue, an immediate apology issued and revised letters were issued on the next working day."

The authority said it would look at ways to avoid compulsory redundancy as far as possible, considering redeployment into existing vacant posts and voluntary redundancy.

The spokesman added: "Anyone who is made redundant will be given advice and training in searching for jobs, interview skills, and benefits advice."

The prospect of a third of the staff in the council’s planning department losing their jobs has alarmed conservationists.

Of the 67.6 full-time equivalent posts in the department, staff whose hours add up to 19.5 positions have been give official letters stating they are at risk of redundancy.

Staff working in every section - project support, development management, historic environment, enforcement, management operations and environment - are affected by the cutbacks.

B&NES says the proposals affect 28.8 per cent of full-time equivalent posts.

It says that the recession led to a fall of almost a quarter in planning applications last year - but that there will be enough staff to cope with extra demand as the recession eases.

“The council received 22 per cent fewer planning applications last year than it did the previous one, mainly due to the fall in the householder development category. Flexibility is built into the proposed new structure to allow for an upturn. Any additional resources required to cover large developments of work could be undertaken through external funding from development delivery agreements.”

Conservation groups are worried about the effect of cutbacks in staffing in a department that looks after one of the biggest collections of listed buildings in the country.

The council is also involved in a major consultation exercise over its core strategy document - a blueprint looking two decades ahead which will shape future planning decisions.

Bath Preservation Trust chief executive Caroline Kay said: “Which 28 per cent of the work does the council think will not need doing in the year that it writes its core strategy?

“We are just coming out of the recession and to base your staffing needs on the bottom of one of the worst downturns in history seems extraordinary.

“It would be a great shame to lose the expertise and back history of that department.”

Mrs Kay said the trust was also concerned that the council’s long-term plans to move out of Trimbridge House - where the planning department is currently based - and transfer more staff to Keynsham would lead to Bath being shortchanged.

Jim Warren of the Bath Heritage Watchdog pressure group added: “We are concerned that some parts of the planning department already appear under pressure. This might not be the ideal place for cuts.”

Historian and conservation expert Kirsten Elliott said she feared the council’s conservation officers - planners responsible for scrutinising applications for listed buildings - were being targetted because they were seen as obstacles to new development proposals.

“Among the aims is one to increase income generation and stop providing services which are uneconomic or where inadequate funding exists.  Since listed building applications do not generate income, unlike full applications, this must be the excuse for cutting the numbers. 

“However, this is a World Heritage City with an unusually high number of listed buildings.  How can this possibly be justified?”

A council document looking at the impact of the cuts says there will be a "risk of complaints from historical lobby and statutory bodies" but that “straightforward” listed building applications would go to general planning case officers.

Ms Elliott said: “This is absolutely unacceptable.  For a start, as one who works with clients and historic environment team officers, I can state that there is no such thing as a straightforward case.  Listings are often incorrect, and what may look like a simple case frequently turns out to be more complicated than first thought.  If architects do not always recognise features of interest – and they don’t – then how can planning officers who have not spend their time looking at this type of building possibly know?

“The excuse is that this will provide experience for planning case officers.  The historic environment team is scheduled to lose two out of 7.5 posts – one of these a senior conservation officer.  This team is already overstretched.”

The hardest hit section will be the environment team, where 4.5 out of the 10 FTE posts - which include urban designers - are threatened.