Transport & Economy



Good communications have been responsible for much of the Borough’s past development and our position in the centre of the country and at the heart of the motorway network ensure we remain a key distribution centre. Its closeness to the M6 and its central location between Manchester and Birmingham have been boosted by the development of the A50 link road which has speeded up access east to the M1. These links have resulted in a number of national and international distribution companies setting up bases in the Borough, with the Parkhouse Industrial Estate and the Lymedale Business Park popular locations. Recent additions to Lymedale have included TK Maxx which has established a 250,000 sq. ft. distribution hub there. The Small Firms Business Centre built by the Borough Council offers units varying in size from 1,000 to 4,000 square feet. Across the Borough as a whole there are over 20 business parks and industrial estates containing companies which range in size from giant warehouses to one-room workshops.



Knowledge industries



The Science Park at Keele University is also helping to diversify the area's reliance on jobs in traditional manufacturing. The development of the Science Park has been central to the University’s policy of developing strong links with businesses in the region and this has already resulted in research and consultancy contracts, flexible training schemes, and the provision of conference and banqueting facilities and business information services. Two new striking Innovation Centres have been completed on the site and a further two are under development to provide incubator units and encourages the development of research-based new company start-ups. These are immediately adjacent to the University's Health Sciences Complex which includes the brand-new Undergraduate Medical School, an imposing development alongside the new entrance road.



About the Council



The overall commitment of the Borough Council is ……


”Newcastle-Under-Lyme Borough exists to serve the people of the Borough and to strive for a sustainable, safe and healthy environment in which they will want to live, work, and spend their leisure.”



Our priorities



The Council has identified 4 priority areas in its plan. These all relate closely to the ambitions contained within the Newcastle-under-Lyme Community Strategy. Underpinning and supporting these priority areas is the Council’s Corporate Improvement Agenda, which is aimed at ensuring the Council operates in a cost effective and accessible manner based on a clear understanding of community needs and ambitions. The 4 priority areas are: Community Safety, Regeneration, Stronger Communities, Environment.



Our Commitments



The commitments of the Council describe how it would like to connect and communicate with its communities and citizens, and how it runs as an organisation. They are cross cutting in nature, and should be taken into account when designing and delivering all services. The Council’s commitments underpin both its priority areas and its priorities for improvement and we anticipate that they will remain constant over a long period of time.



1. We aim to deliver an excellent service to our communities.

2. We are committed to improvement, both continuous, incremental, and breakthrough.

3. We respect our employees and value the contribution they make to our success.

4. We will act in a fair, open, and honest way with integrity and impartiality, following ethical standards.

5. We will respect our other stakeholders, valuing them as we do our staff.

6. We will ensure sustainability by taking a responsible approach in all our activities so as to minimise our impact on the environment.



Political structure of the council



May’s local elections saw a major change in the political make-up of Newcastle-under-Lyme BC, when a partnership of Conservative and Liberal Democrat councillors took control. Conservative leader Simon Tagg became leader of the Council and Liberal Democrat Robin Studd became deputy leader. Although Labour remains the largest single party with 27 seats, the partnership has a total of 31 seats with 17 Conservative councillors and 14 Liberal Democrats. There is one UKIP councillor and one Independent.



Members of the Cabinet oversee the following ‘portfolios’ or groups of services:-

Finance, Resources and Efficiency – Cllr Jeremy Lefroy (Con)

Environment and Recycling – Cllr David Becket (Lib Dem)

Regeneration and Planning – Cllr Robin Studd (Lib Dem)

Community Safety – Cllr Glennis Deakin (Con)

Quality of Life and Social Inclusion – Cllr Mary Maxfield (Lib Dem)

Corporate and Service Improvement – Cllr Simon Tagg (Con)



Restructure



The Borough Council agreed a new structure to deliver improved services to the public. The intention behind the changes is to introduce into the Council strong leadership and champions of change; strengthen management capacity in the middle of the organisation and at the point of service delivery; and provide additional and dedicated organisational capacity at the corporate centre to enable front line staff to more effectively carry out their jobs.


 

The council’s performance



(Extract from Audit Commission Annual Audit and Inspection Letter, March 2006 - under the previous Labour Administration )

The Council is struggling to deliver improvement consistently and to target under-performing services. Challenge to existing service arrangements has been lacking and monitoring and reporting is not sufficiently rigorous or detailed. Critical issues are to effectively implement the Cultural Change Programme, to achieve improvement in priority areas where there has been consistent underperformance and to address weaknesses in its use of resources.

The best value review programme does not appear to operate in a culture which fundamentally challenges how, or indeed whether the Council should provide services. Our review of change management highlighted that the Council has recognised that it is struggling to deliver improvement on the scale, and at the pace, required. It continues to face budget pressures and at the same time, has an ambitious programme of change. We are working with officers to address these issues. The approach to managing risk is developing but it is not yet fully embedded. There is a lack of consistency in the application of risk protocols and not all major projects or initiatives are adequately, or consistently, risk assessed.

Frontline services, such as refuse collection and grounds maintenance, are delivered in a manner reliant on obsolete contracts which are now a barrier to best value and the Council is unable to demonstrate that the services are either delivering value for money or continuous improvement. Service and financial management arrangements are weak and there are inadequate and inconsistent governance arrangements in place to ensure that these services are managed appropriately. A radical review of how these services are delivered is needed to ensure they are delivering value for money. Service specifications need to be revised to reflect modern practices and market testing undertaken to ensure the services are competitive. Service and financial management need to be strengthened and aligned service delivery. Financial recovery plans need to be put in place.

The medium-term financial strategy is soundly based and designed to deliver corporate objectives. The budget is balanced and comprehensive; however, due to the introduction of a new finance system and resource pressures within the finance department, budget monitoring reports were not provided to members until September 2005. The information produced initially was focused on some risk areas without an overall forecast of outturn. By December, it became apparent that a deficit was likely. Only with timely and appropriate financial reporting will members be able to consider and approve action plans to address overspends and address potential deficits within the year. In most respects, the management of fixed assets complies with good practice. The arrangements could be improved by ensuring that there is a formal, objective process against which capital projects are prioritised.

Our use of resources value for money assessment found that the Council has not considered and defined what is meant by 'value for money' and as a result it is not able to monitor if and how this is being achieved. Service quality is mixed and there is no link between spending levels and performance across all service areas. There is no evidence that improvement activity is being targeted at under performing services. There are pockets of good practice that would help to achieve and manage value for money if harnessed within a corporate approach.
 

As at the 31 March 2005 the overall financial position was sound, but the latest budget monitoring report of 8 February 2006 indicates a potential deficit of £0.856 million for 2005/06, an increase from the estimate of £0.705 million reported in January. Whilst general balances are adequate, increasing expenditure demands in the current and future financial years will put additional pressure on resources. The Council needs to have regard to all of the prudential code indicators given the problems of inappropriate borrowing and lending that have occurred, members need to closely monitor and scrutinise the prudential code indicators.


Action needed by the Council