Decisions

That the Executive approved Option 3 – “Uplift including National Living Wage for frontline carers and recognising inflationary pressures” and the following increases in fee levels for 2024/25, with the proposals to come into effect from 1^st April 2024. The table at paragraph below, summarises the proposed uplifts for the recommended Option 3 and further detail is set out in detail throughout section 3 of the report.

Table 1

Reason for Recommendations

·       The National Living Wage (NLW) increase for 2024/25 is 9.8%. This compares to 9.7% in 2023/24. In addition to this we know that providers continue to face broader inflationary pressures. 

·       The care and support market in North Northamptonshire continues to experience difficulties with the recruitment and retention of care staff with a vacancy rate of 9.8% (2.2% lower than in 2021/22) and turnover rate of 24% for care providers (2% lower than in 2021/22).

·       Whilst this is an improving trend the data continues to demonstrate that providers are facing challenges in recruiting and retaining care staff. This is caused by competition from other industries as well as the legacy of Covid-19.

·       The ability of providers to recruit and retain a sufficient workforce is one of the key challenges and risks for the sector. By effectively targeting our annual uplifts we support our contracted care providers ability to develop strategic responses to workforce challenges, including offering rates of pay that are competitive with other local sectors.

·       The position in North Northamptonshire is in keeping with the national picture. Alongside targeting our inflationary uplifts, we continue to work in partnership with our contracted providers to make social care an attractive career proposition within North Northamptonshire.

·       During 2022/23 we have offered fully funded training to care staff working within the independent care sector and continued our work to develop our social care workforce strategy. However, fee uplifts remain a crucial lever in ensuring providers are able to support social care as being an attractive career option for people in North Northamptonshire.

·       There continues to be a need to utilise non contracted providers and to commission individual packages of care with spot providers. Whilst there has been a significant decrease in the number of spot providers commissioned, these providers continue to be comparatively more expensive on a unit (hour or week) basis.

·       Spot provision is costly to the Council and the proposed uplift seeks to positively influence existing contract framework supply through retention and sustainability whilst also incentivising an increase in supply through levering better rates of pay and reward for our contracted providers. Work continues to minimise our utilisation of spot providers and to focus our commissioning activity solely with our contracted providers.

·       Our strategy is to focus our development and commissioning activity specifically with our contracted providers. Alongside this fee uplift we are focused on utilising our enhanced provider offer for contracted providers that includes funded training and an enhanced quality monitoring and support function. This enables the Council to support improvement in the quality of its contracted care providers, secure a sustainable market of high-quality providers and secure value for money in our independent care spend.

Alternative Options Considered: The alternative options, in summary, considered included:

Option 1: Do nothing and apply no uplifts (not recommended)

Option 2: Targeting uplifts at particular service types (not recommended)

Option 3: Uplift including NLW for frontline carers and recognising inflationary pressures (Recommended Option)

Option 4:Lower uplift to the whole market including spot and framework providers (Not recommended)

The alternative options are presented in more detail in section 5 of the report.

That the Executive:

a)             Adopted the Northamptonshire Serious Violence Duty Strategy 2023-25; and

b)             Delegated authority to the Executive Member for Housing, Communities and Levelling Up in consultation with the Director of Public Health and Wellbeing to ensure the strategy is implemented through the Northamptonshire Serious Violence Prevention Partnership.

Reason for Recommendations – to ensure that the Council, as a specified partner, meets the requirements of the Serious Violence Duty.

Alternative Options Considered – The only alternative option would be not to adopt the strategy. This would have significant negative impact on our ability to fulfil all parts of the duty and our role in ensuring equitable investment of the Home Office funding for North Northamptonshire would be compromised.

That the Executive:

i)        Noted the position set out in this report regarding the legal ownership of the KLV site arising from the nature of the Council’s and PLMS’s leasehold interest;

ii)       Noted the Options Review produced by Max Associates, and that these options are predicated on the Council having full control of the site which it currently does not have;

iii)     Noted the Council is not able to take control of the site and take on the day to day running of KLV under any of the options laid out in the Options Review due to the nature of its legal interest;

iv)     Noted the recommendation in the Options Review that, should the site come back into the full control of the Council, in the short term, an external contractor would be the most sustainable solution, but also notes the subsequent budgetary pressure this would create, whilst the wider management model for the Council’s entire leisure portfolio is considered.

v)      Endorsed the current proactive approach of the Leisure and Asset Management teams in working with PLMS to support the ongoing business growth and development of future plans.  

Reasons for Recommendations:

·       The Council is not in control of the KLV site and legally has limited step-in rights to manage the facility and the obligations within the sub-underlease that require the sports facilities to remain open. Courts do not support keep open clauses and the only recourse they would consider if a breach occurred, is compensation to the landlord of any loss of income etc. This would not resolve the issue and it is not likely that any compensation awarded would fully compensate any loss, nor does it guarantee PLMS could pay such costs. PLMS has confirmed its commitment to the site and has made recent capital investment into it.

·       The Council is engaging with PLMS in its capacity as Landlord to explore ways it can continue to support the sustainability of the centre, without financial detriment to the Council.

·       The Council is in the process of developing a Leisure Facilities Strategy and a review of Future Management Options for the whole of its leisure estate which will report in early 2025. Any future decision regarding KLV needs to be considered in this wider strategic context.

·       There are no management options as a result of the legal interests in the site. It is therefore not an option for the Council to take on the running of KLV.

Alternative Options Considered:

·       The Council could approach PLMS and ask that they voluntarily relinquish their lease and all rights to the site, at no cost to the Council. Alternatively, the Council could open negotiations with PLMS to surrender their lease at a premium to the Council. Either of these two options could give the Council control of the site. These options are not recommended as the options appraisal confirms that the Council operating the site is not financially viable.

·       PLMS have not shown any indication that they would wish to relinquish the lease without payment. The cost of a negotiated surrender is currently unknown as it would be dependent on PMLS bringing this option forward, a condition survey of the building and on business growth and profitability at the point of sale. For KLV, this is continuously changing and currently improving, from almost a restart position, following the threat of closure in the summer of 2023. Market value does not reflect worth to the Council, nor necessarily does the price Phoenix would accept to surrender the lease. 

·       Notwithstanding that the option to negotiate a surrender of the lease is a matter for PMLS to bring forward, to do so at any cost to the Council, is not recommended at this stage. However, dialogue will continue to be held with PLMS on their future plans for the site, in particular how the tenant will ensure investment in the asset is secured to safeguard any financial risk to the Council of dilapidations and ensure the preservation of the asset. 

·       Whilst both of the above represent the conditions under which the Council could have control of the site, neither are viable options for the Council.

That the Executive

a)  Accepted the allocation of £5m of capital funding through the Levelling Up Fund and noted the funding criteria;

b)  Delegated authority to the Leader of the Council to establish and agree membership of a Councillor and Officer Panel to consider projects to be shortlisted for inclusion in the Councils’ Investment Plan. The Panel to include the leaders of the recognised political groups of the council and  two local heritage and culture sector representatives.

c)  Delegated authority to the Leader in consultation with the Executive Director (Deputy Chief Executive) for Place and Economy) to approve and implement the Terms of Reference of the Panel as detailed in Appendix A to the report noting any prescribed requirements attached to the allocation of funding ; and

d)  Delegated authority to the Leader in consultation with the Executive Director for Place & Economy ( Deputy Chief Executive) and Executive Director for Finance & Performance, to consider and accept recommendations from the Panel and submit the Investment Plan to Government.

Reason for Recommendations: To provide a mechanism for the Investment Plan to be agreed and submitted by the deadline set by Government of 10^th May 2024 and to ensure compliance with the funding requirements in respect of projects.

Alternative Options Considered: The Council does not submit an Investment Plan. This is not recommended as the Council would lose the opportunity to access the £5m investment fund to support cultural assets.

That the Executive noted the performance of the Council as measured by the available indicators at Period 11 (February) 2023/24, set out in Appendix A to the report. 

That the Executive:

a)             Noted and accepted the allocation of Bus Service Improvement Plan Phase 3 funding totalling £2.045m and agreed to spend the grant in accordance with the grant conditions.

b)             Delegated authority to the Executive Member for Highways, Travel & Assets in consultation with the Executive Director of Place & Economy to award any individual local bus contracts exceeding £500,000. 

c)             Noted and accepted the receipt of Safer Roads Safety Funding totalling £2.2m for works on the A6 and agreed to spend the grant in accordance with the grant conditions.

d)             Noted and welcomed the allocation of Local Transport Funding totalling £149.208m over the seven-year period 2025/26-31/32.

Reason for Recommendation: To spend the external funding in accordance with the terms and conditions of the grants. 

Alternative Options Considered – Options would include not spending the money and allowing DfT to recoup it. Alternatively, the Council could choose to spend the money on schemes that are not a priority in line with their Northamptonshire Transportation Plan. Neither option is recommended as they do not represent the best interests of the authority or those who rely on the highways and transport network.

That the Executive approved the North Northamptonshire Council All Age Carers Strategy 2024-2029.

Reasons for Recommendation:

·       The recommended approach ensures compliance with NNC’s Care Act 2014 duties.

·       Carers in North Northamptonshire have identified 5 key priorities, implementation of the Strategy is now required to support these priorities.

·       The Care Quality Commission now assesses how local authorities meet their Care Act 2014 duties; the All-Age Carers Strategy provides assurance in this area.

Alternative Options Considered –

·       Adapting the “Countywide Strategy” developed by Northamptonshire Carers Association- this option does not meet the specific needs of North Northamptonshire’s carers.

·       No Strategy in place - this option does not offer commitment and support to carers, it will lead to confusion, a lack of joined up approaches, and potential crisis for carers due to the lack of support and prevention. This would also not achieve value for money, as the cared for person may then need formal (paid for) care, and the carer may develop their own health and support needs.

·       The proposed option most closely aligns with NNC’s Corporate Plan Priority of “Active and Fulfilled Lives”.

·       The recommended course of action supports the duties placed on NNC through the Care Act 2014.