Item 10 - Financial Update
West Dunbartonshire Council · 18 December 2024
Back to West Dunbartonshire Council — 18 December 2024 and its agenda
Text extracted from the council's PDF. Layout and reading order may differ from the original.
Page 1
WEST DUNBARTONSHIRE COUNCIL Report by Chief Officer - Resources Council: 18 December 2024 Subject: Financial Update 1. PURPOSE 1.1 To provide an update on the financial challenges facing the Council, the estimated 2025/26 – 2029/30 revenue budget gaps and present the first tranche of saving options for members consideration to help the Council deliver a balanced 2025/26 budget. 1.2 This update has been prepared using three different scenarios, best case, worst case and mid-range. Relatively small variations in assumptions can lead to fairly significant changes in the outcome. Throughout the report the primary focus is on the mid-range, however, where appropriate reference is made to best case and worst case assumptions. 1.3 The report also seeks Council agreement to expand the number of shared posts within the existing Audit & Fraud shared service. 2. RECOMMENDATIONS 2.1 Members are asked to: a) note that the Council’s estimated 2025/26 revenue budget gap has increased from £10.273m as at October 2024 to £10.472m b) approve the £0.052m, rising to £0.061m by 2027/28, of saving options requiring political consideration to contribute toward agreeing a balanced 2025/26 budget and assist with future projected budget gaps c) note the £0.564m, rising to £0.691m by 2027/28, of management adjustments which will contribute to agreeing a balanced 2025/26 budget and assist with future projected budget gaps d) approve an assumed annual increase of 5% on all sales, fees and charges that the Council has authority to set whilst agreeing that Council retains the option to set a different increase on a collective or individual basis when agreeing the annual revenue budget e) agrees to expanding the number of shared Internal Audit posts with Inverclyde Council and notes the ongoing discussions at officer level with a third council regarding a potential larger Internal Audit shared service. ITEM 10
Page 2
3. BACKGROUND 3.1 On 6 March 2024, the Council agreed a balanced 2024/25 revenue budget, a revised capital budget and revenue estimates for 2025/26-2028/29. That budget report also highlighted estimated future year budget gaps based on a range of assumptions including future Scottish Government funding, inflation and future interest rates. The consequences of the decisions taken by Council on 6 March to agree a balanced 2024/25 budget reduced the cumulative estimated future budget gap in the best case, mid-range and worst case scenarios. Further reports to Council on 19 June 2024 and 30 October 2024 provided further updates on the financial challenges faced by the Council and updated the estimated budget gaps as set out in Exhibit 1. Exhibit 1 – Future Year Estimated Budget Gaps 30 October 2024 Council Report Budget Gap 2025/26 £000 2026/27 £000 2027/28 £000 2028/29 £000 2029/30 £000 Best Case 9,542 19,408 28,126 37,127 50,922 Mid-Range 10,273 21,177 30,812 46,123 55,563 Worst Case 14,514 30,173 43,267 57,736 77,095 4. MAIN ISSUES 4.1 I have revisited the key assumptions and cost pressures detailed in the 30 October 2024 Council report. This is summarised in the paragraphs below. UK Government Autumn Statement and Scottish Government Finance Settlement 4.2 In my 30 October 2024 report I retained my assumption regarding the Council’s financial settlement of: • Best Case - Flat Cash • Mid-Range – Flat Cash • Worst Case - 1.0% reduction. 4.3 On 30 October 2024 the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced significant increases in revenue to be raised through taxation, increased investment in UK public spending and confirmed updated Block Grant funding totals for the Scottish Government. In summary the Scottish Government is receiving £3.4 billion of additional Barnett Consequentials across 2024/25 and 2025/26 with this split between revenue (£2.8 billion) and capital (£0.6 billion). A breakdown of the Barnett Consequentials coming to the Scottish Government is shown in Exhibit 2.
Page 3
Exhibit 2 – Barnett Consequentials for Scotland 2024/25 and 2025/26 Revenue 2024/25 (£ million) Additional 2025/26 (£ million) Overall 2025/26 Increase (£ million) Health & Social Care 790 845 1,635 Education 195 361 556 Levelling Up, Housing and Communities 47 -53 -6 Local Government 6 277 283 Other 395 -69 326 Total Revenue 1,433 1,361 2,794 Capital Health & Social Care 0 89 89 Education 14 51 65 Levelling Up, Housing and Communities 4 141 145 Local Government 0 0 0 Other 54 339 393 Total Capital 72 620 692 Overall Total 1,505 1,981 3,486 4.4 While the consequentials appear to indicate a possible increase in local government funding, the detail will not be known until the draft Scottish Government budget which the Cabinet Secretary for Finance has confirmed will be presented on 4 December. However, it will not be until 12 December that councils will receive their individual settlement details. The complexity of the settlement and the likely extended period of queries raised by S95 Officers across Scotland to clarify elements within it, means it will be difficult for officers to have sufficient time to examine the detailed impact of settlement on the Council in advance of the Council meeting on 18 December. Therefore, it is unlikely that, at the date of the Council meeting, I will be able to advise on the Council’s funding position with any degree of certainty. As such I am maintaining my funding assumptions as set out in paragraph 4.2 however the budget gap will be adjusted to reflect the Council’s settlement in advance of the Council setting its 2025/26 budget on 5 March 2025. 4.5 The provisional dates for the Budget Bill (note these may change as they have not yet been agreed by Parliament) are: • Stage One 04/02/25 • Stage Two 18/02/25
Page 4
• Stage Three 25/02/25 The debate on the Local Government Finance Order is usually held a week after stage three. 4.6 As part of the UK Budget announced on 30 August 2024, the Chancellor also announced an increase to Employers National Insurance Contributions effective from 1 April 2025. The rate that employers pay in contributions will rise from 13.8% to 15% on a worker's earnings above £175 from April. The threshold at which employers start paying the tax on each employee’s salary will be reduced from £9,100 per year to £5,000. Funding for this change has not yet been included in the Scottish Government Resource Block Grant for 2025/26. At this time the position being advised by COSLA and the UK Government is that the increase in public sector employers’ national insurance will be funded by the UK Government and therefore no cost pressure has been added to the Council’s 2025/26 budget in relation to this at this time. Officers are currently progressing work to fully understand the financial burden this will mean for the Council if the increase is not funded. It is recognised that Scotland has a larger and higher paid public sector workforce and as such, depending on the negotiations between the UK and Scottish Government, there may be a funding gap which may not be known until the UK Government “Spring Supplementary estimates” in February 2025. There is a risk that any Barnett consequential-based funding may not provide sufficient funding to cover the full cost of this change in Scotland. Base Budget Adjustments 4.7 There have been five changes to the Council’s base budget since the 30 October report to Council. 4.8 Base Budget Adjustment 1 – Probation teacher’s salaries In 2024/25 it transpired the average unpromoted teacher salary was slightly less than predicted when the 2024/25 budget was set. A review has been carried out which has confirmed £0.400m can be reduced from the staff costs budget as a consequence of this. 4.9 Base Budget Adjustment 2 – Correct a Recharge in General Fund Budget A previous management adjustment introduced a direct recharge to the HRA for the use of the contact centre based on repairs and number of calls which should have been added to the general fund as income. The charge was made however the income was not reflected in the general fund budget. An adjustment of £0.089m is required to reflect this in the general fund. 4.10 Base Budget Adjustment 3 – Education Maintenance Allowance (EMA) A review of the budget for EMA payments has identified that a small budget
Page 5
reduction of £30,000 can be processed based on the number of eligible pupils. 4.11 Base Budget Adjustment 4 – NDR/water rates for Clydebank Town Hall A review of the non-domestic and water rates budget for Clydebank Town Hall payments has identified that a small budget reduction of £14,000 can be processed based on actual spend against budgeted spend. 4.12 Base Budget Adjustment 5 – Heating Oil in Schools A review of the heating oil costs in primary schools has identified that a small budget reduction of £10,000 can be processed based on some savings through the replacement of oil central heating systems in some primary schools. Cost Pressures 4.13 Generally, services work on the basis of having to contain any cost pressures within current resources, however, there are cost pressures which are unavoidable and need to be factored into future budget processes. There have been six new cost pressures identified since the 30 October 2024 report to Council. 4.14 Cost Pressure 1 - Additional Support Needs (ASN) Costs and Income The Council incurs expenditure for ASN placements at other local authority schools - e.g. specialist schools for severely deaf children but also mainstream schools with children requiring additional learning assistant support. At the point of setting the budget it is necessary to estimate the number of placements that will need to be made and the average placement cost. A review of the estimated expenditure in 2025/26 is showing a shortfall of £0.312m due to the need to place a greater number of children in high-cost specialist schools despite the overall number of children placed outwith West Dunbartonshire being broadly similar to that of 2023/24 (29). The overall average cost per placement has risen from about £20k in 2023/24 to £27k in 2024/25. The Council also receives income for ASN placements from other authorities into West Dunbartonshire Council establishments. Similarly, at budget setting, an estimate is made of the number of placements that will be made in Council establishments. A review of the estimated income in 2025/26 is showing a shortfall of £92,000 against the current budget. Although our charges per placement are higher than in 2023/24 the number of children being placed within the West Dunbartonshire school estate by other local authorities (9) is less than the 13 in 2023/24 and the number implied by the 2024/25 budgeted income. Combined this creates a cost pressure of £0.404m. 4.15 Cost Pressure 2 - Early Years Cross Boundary Charges
Page 6
Parents can put a child in a funded nursery place outwith their local authority area (for example many working parents who live outside Glasgow but work there put their children in Glasgow nurseries). These children are placed in funded provider nurseries rather than Council run facilities. Local authorities charge at the rate they pay their own private providers. The Council pays one of the lowest rates and so charges others at this rate with most of our charges either to Argyll and Bute Council or Glasgow City Council who both charge considerably higher. When setting the budget there was an assumption that the income received from children placed in WDC establishments would broadly offset the expenditure on WDC children placed in other authority establishments however that has not transpired to be the case. The Council pays for 59 children (at higher rates) and receives income for 38. The impact of this is a shortfall of £0.102m compared to the budget. 4.16 Cost Pressure 3 – ASN Riverside There is an increasing number of pupils with a complexity of Additional Support Needs in West Dunbartonshire Council. This has previously been addressed with the expansion of our Primary ASN provision with the creation of ASN bases however, in March 2022 the necessity to expand the secondary provision as this cohort moved through primary to secondary school was recognised by the Education Committee. Accordingly, a threefold strategy was agreed involving: • provision of additional capacity at Kilpatrick School • adaptation of an unused part of the Choices facility • adaptation of the vacated Riverside facility at St Martin’s Primary to cater for pupils with severe and complex learning needs particularly those with Autism Spectrum Disorder. The new facility at Riverside with a 36 pupil capacity is scheduled to open in August 2025. However, given the number and age of the pupils coming through the primary support bases it is not necessary to open at full capacity immediately. In 2025/26 it will open with 2 classes (12 pupils) rising to 4 classes (24 pupils) in 2026/27 before reaching capacity in 2027/28. Staffing requirements will increase accordingly which creates a cost pressure of £0.090m in 2025/26, rising to £0.369m in 2026/27 and £0.446m in 2027/28. 4.17 Other Cost Pressures under £100k In addition to the larger cost pressures detailed above there are four which are under £100k in value. • £85k for VAT charges on Artizan units where the VAT charges cannot be passed onto existing tenancies until such time as those tenancies are taken on by a new tenant. • £77k for school meal holiday payments being in excess of the sum allocated by the Scottish Government as the Council’s eligible caseload
Page 7
is about 15% higher than the caseload implicit in the distribution allocation. • £63k for Vehicle Testing Unit income which has never fully recovered since numbers reduced during the COVID pandemic. • £6k for rental income achieved on Balloch Park Kiosk and Levengrove Pavilion being slightly under budgeted estimates. Sales, Fees and Charges 4.18 The Council’s financial planning has historically assumed a 4% annual increase in sales, fees and charges (SFC). For the past two years Council, as part of the budget process, has taken a decision to increase SFC by 10% rather than 4%. On that basis the annual increase is now assumed to be 5% rather than 4%, this reduces the 2025/26 budget gap by £0.085m. The Council is asked to approve this assumed annual increase assumption which will be applied going forward. The increased assumption is built into the 2025/26 budget gap. When agreeing the budget on 6 March 2024 the Council may wish to consider an option to increase fees and charges by a different percentage and may also consider fees for specific areas as part of saving options where a different approach to the annual 5% may be considered. Revised Mid-Range Estimated Budget Gap 4.19 Exhibit 3 sets out the revised cumulative estimated budget gap in the mid- range in 2025/26 – 2029/30. It illustrates that, prior to any measures to balance the budget, the Council is faced with a budget gap of £10.472m in 2025/26 rising cumulatively to £55.688m in 2029/30. Exhibit 3 – Revised Mid-Range Estimated Budget Gaps (Cumulative) Para 2025/26 (£000) 2026/27 (£000) 2027/28 (£000) 2028/29 (£000) 2029/30 (£000) Budget Gap 30 October 2024 3.1 10,273 21,117 30,812 46,123 55,563 Probation Teacher Salaries 4.8 (400) (400) (400) (400) (400) Recharge Budget Adjustment 4.9 (89) (89) (89) (89) (89) Education Maintenance Allowance 4.10 (30) (30) (30) (30) (30) Clydebank Town Hall Rates 4.11 (14) (14) (14) (14) (14) Heating Oil 4.12 (10) (10) (10) (10) (10) ASN Costs & Income 4.14 404 404 404 404 404 Early Years Cross Boundary Charges 4.15 102 102 102 102 102 ASN Riverside 4.16 90 369 446 446 446 Artizan VAT 4.17 85 85 85 85 85
Page 8
School Meal Holiday Payments 4.17 77 77 77 77 77 Vehicle Testing Income 4.17 63 63 63 63 63 Rental Income 4.17 6 6 6 6 6 5% Sales, Fees & Charges 4.18 (85) (179) (280) (388) (515) Revised Estimated Budget Gap 10,472 21,501 31,172 46,375 55,688 Measures to Balance the Budget 4.20 Between May and December 2024 officers have been developing a range of saving options to help address the budget gap. They are categorised as either: • Political options – options which require elected member approval • Management adjustments – options which can be implemented as part of normal business, have no frontline service impact and the only staff impact can be managed through existing vacancies 4.21 A first tranche of saving options has been finalised. The political options are presented to Council for approval and the management adjustments are presented for noting. The savings options identified to date propose a potential reduction to the Council’s establishment of 5.8 FTE assuming they are all accepted by Council. They are summarised in Exhibit 4. Exhibit 4 – December 2024 Saving Options 2025/26 2026/27 2027/28 (and future years) Category No Saving (£,000) FTE Saving (£,000) FTE Saving (£,000) FTE Political 4 52 0.0 57 0.0 61 0.0 Mgt Adjustments 16 564 5.8 691 5.8 691 5.8 Total 20 616 5.8 748 5.8 752 5.8 4.22 A more detailed breakdown of these saving options is provided in appendix 1 and 2 with appendices 3 and 4 providing the detail of each saving option including the risk/impact associated with them. 4.23 The Chief Executive is authorised to progress voluntary severance and early retirement offers, where appropriate, to support the 2025/26 budget savings exercise. Where appropriate targeted discussions will commence in service areas following the Council decision. 4.24 Exhibit 5 sets out the revised 2025/26-2029/30 cumulative budget gap after taking account of the proposed measures to balance the budget. This reduces the estimated 2025/26 budget gap to £9.856m however this would be on the basis all attached measures to balance the budget are approved and that the key assumptions made when estimating the 2025/26 budget gap are accurate.
Page 9
Exhibit 5 Updated Mid-Range Estimated Budget Gaps (Cumulative) after Measures to Balance the Budget Para 2025/26 (£000) 2026/27 (£000) 2027/28 (£000) 2028/29 (£000) 2029/30 (£000) Revised Estimated Budget Gap before Measures to Balance Budget 4.19 10,472 21,501 31,172 46,375 55,688 Political Saving Options 4.21 (52) (57) (61) (61) (61) Management Adjustments 4.21 (564) (691) (691) (691) (691) Revised Estimated Budget Gap After Measures to Balance Budget 9,856 20,753 30,420 45,623 54,936 4.25 It is clear from Exhibit 5 that further work is required to develop options to bridge the remaining estimated budget gap and officers will bring forward a second tranche of saving options as part of the budget report to be considered by Council when setting the 2025/26 budget. Other Issues 4.26 Health and Social Care Partnership The Council, at the budget meeting on 6 March 2024, agreed an HSCP requisition of £85.029m (subsequently increased to £88.945m as reported to Council in June to reflect funding provided by Scottish Government to fund the pay uplift to a minimum rate of £12 per hour for workers providing direct adult social care in the third and independent sectors). There is a working assumption that the future allocation to the HSCP is on the basis of ‘flat cash’ plus the appropriate share of the Health & Social Care funding commitments made by the Scottish Government. However this is only an assumption and the HSCP requisition will be a matter for Council to consider as part of the budget process. 4.27 Council Tax The estimated budget gap makes no assumption over future Council Tax increases as setting the Council Tax is a matter for Council to decide when agreeing the 2025/26 budget on 5 March 2025. Members will be aware that there was no Council Tax increase in 2023/24 with funding of £2.219m made available by the Scottish Government equivalent to a 5% increase as part of the original Revenue Support Grant settlement with an additional £1.129m of funding in March 2024 (after the Council set its budget) . The two key factors to consider in relation to the Council Tax freeze are:
Page 10
1. The Council could have raised Council Tax by more than the funded 5% however would have needed to forego the funding. 2. A freeze erodes the Council Tax base so does not only affect the year of the freeze it also impacts the tax base in perpetuity. 4.28 The budget conversation exercise recently carried out by the Council (reported to Council on 30 October 2024) included the question: Would you be prepared to pay more Council tax in order to reduce the savings required? The response was: • Yes – 50.07% (51.11% of those responding) • No – 47.88% (48.88% of those responding) • No response - 2.05% 4.29 Prior to the 2023/24 Council Tax freeze being announced some councils were considering Council Tax increases far in excess of the 5% funded by the Scottish Government. In particular Argyll and Bute Council agreed a 10% increase which was subsequently reversed and Inverclyde Council have agreed an 8.2% increase which will (subject to any subsequent changes be added to any 25/26 Council tax rise. Furthermore: 1. Perth and Kinross Council - as part of their Medium Term Financial Strategy, Perth and Kinross Council have endorsed a Council Tax Strategy of increases of 10% in 2025/26, and indicative rises of 10% in 2026/27 and 6% in 2027/28, both of which will be subject to final budget setting for these years. 2. North Lanarkshire Council - the NLC Policy and Strategy Committee, on 5 December, are considering a council tax strategy which includes a range of council tax increase scenarios as set out below. Exhibit 6 illustrates the impact of 10%, 15% and 20% increases on Band D Council Tax rates and the additional revenue it would generate.
Page 11
Exhibit 6 – Impact of 10%, 15% and 20% CT Increases CT Increase 2024/25 Band D CT (£) 2025/26 Band D CT (£) Annual Increase (£) Weekly Increase (£) Additional Revenue (£) 10% 1,398.98 1,538.88 139.90 2.69 4,070,000 15% 1,398.98 1,608.83 209.85 4.04 6,105,000 20% 1,398.98 1,678.78 279.80 5.38 8,140,000 4.30 Internal Audit Provision West Dunbartonshire and Inverclyde Councils have shared the post of Chief Internal Auditor (CIA) since 2020. The intention at the time was to move towards a “deeper” sharing within the team but this has not progressed as the posts impacted were populated. In 2023 the Council agreed to continue the sharing of Internal Audit Services with the same report advising that the two councils were also in the early stages of discussion with other councils regarding expanding the model further to improve resilience. Exploratory talks with a further council regarding expanding the sharing of the service further have continued during 2024 and, subject to further consideration, it is intended to present a report to elected members early in 2025 on progress/options. It should be noted that the proposals in this report are not affected by this potential proposal. 4.31 The audit team within Inverclyde has a post of Senior Fraud Investigation Officer which has been vacant since April 2024. At the same time, West Dunbartonshire Council have a vacant qualified Internal Auditor post. The shared Chief Internal Auditor (CIA) and the Chief Financial Officers of both councils believe filling these two roles on a shared basis would provide greater resilience in both councils by allowing greater delegation by the CIA but also improved support to the respective Audit Committees and IJB Audit Committees. It is expected that there would be very little in the way of net financial implications and in the event that these arose, it is likely they would be absorbed within existing budgets. 5. PEOPLE IMPLICATIONS 5.1 The potential staffing implications are shown within the savings options appended to this report and will be subject to consultation processes where appropriate and managed in accordance with the Council’s Switch Policy (Organisational Change). 6. FINANCIAL AND PROCUREMENT IMPLICATIONS 6.1 The report sets out the estimated revenue budget gaps in 2025/26-2029/30. The financial implications arising from the ongoing budget process are detailed in the report and appendices. There are no direct procurement implications arising from this report. 7. RISK ANALYSIS
Page 12
7.1 None directly from this report but any proposals to address the estimated budget gap will need to consider risk. 8. EQUALITIES IMPACT ASSESSMENT (EIA) 8.1 All individual savings options have been screened and where relevant, impact assessed. Individual EIAs are appended to the report at Appendix 5. 9. CONSULTATION 9.1 The views of all Chief Officers have been requested on this report and feedback incorporated herein. 10. STRATEGIC ASSESSMENT 10.1 Proper budgetary control and sound financial practice are cornerstones of good governance and support Council and officers to pursue the strategic priorities of the Council’s Strategic Plan. 10.2 The General Services revenue budget contributes to all categories by providing funding in specific areas to help the Council achieve and develop these priorities. Laurence Slavin Chief Officer - Resources Date: 5 December 2024 Person to Contact: Laurence Slavin, Chief Officer - Resources E-mail: laurence.slavin@west-dunbarton.gov.uk Appendices: Appendix 1 – Summary of Political Saving Options Appendix 2 – Summary of Management Adjustments Appendix 3 – Detailed Political Saving Options Appendix 4 – Detailed Management Adjustments Appendix 5 – Equality Impact Assessments for All Saving Options Background Papers: Budget Report to Council - 6 March 2024 Financial Update Report to Council – 19 June 2024 Financial Update Report to Council – 30 October 2024
Page 13
Appendix 1 – Summary of Political Saving Options 2025/26 2026/27 2027/28 Ref: CO Saving Option Saving (£,000) FTE Saving (£,000) FTE Saving (£,000) FTE RN03 Gail Macfarlane Review Allotment charges 5 0 10 0 14.5 0 RN26 Gail Macfarlane Special Uplift Charge 21.5 0 21.5 0 21.5 0 RR06 Alan Douglas Revised Legal Charges for Transactions 25 0 25 0 25 0 TOTALS 51.5 0.0 56.5 0.0 61 0.0
Page 14
Appendix 2 – Summary of Management Adjustments 2025/26 2026/27 2027/28 Ref: CO Saving Option Saving (£,000) FTE Saving (£,000) FTE Saving (£,000) FTE CCF05 Amanda Graham Increase events income 8 0 8 0 8 0 CCF06 Amanda Graham Review film locations and formalise fee arrangements 8 0 8 0 8 0 CCF13 Amanda Graham Remove telephone survey 9 0 9 0 9 0 CCF15 Amanda Graham Performance and Strategy Budget Efficiencies 9 0 9 0 9 0 CCF16 Amanda Graham Reduce design budget 12 0 12 0 12 0 EDU25 Laura Mason Redesign Leadership in Children, Young People and Families Teams 6 0.8 21 0.8 21 0.8 PT01 Victoria Rogers Scottish Wide Area Network Savings 0 0 104 0 104 0 PT02 Victoria Rogers Vodafone contract saving 23 0 23 0 23 0 RES09 Laurence Slavin Review of charges for use of offices by external parties 7 0 15 0 15 0 RES13 Laurence Slavin Historical lease review 15 0 15 0 15 0 RES15 Laurence Slavin Reduce size of Building Services 228 4.5 228 4.5 228 4.5 RN01 Gail Macfarlane Stopping Saturday burials 10 0 10 0 10 0 RN07 Gail Macfarlane Capitalise Play Park Fitter 40 0 40 0 40 0 RN09 Gail Macfarlane Further replacement of hire vehicles 171 0 171 0 171 0 RR09 Alan Douglas Registrars 18 0.5 18 0.5 18 0.5 TOTALS 564 5.8 691 5.8 691 5.8
Page 15
Appendix 3 – Detailed Political Saving Options 2025/26 SAVING OPTION Chief Officer: Gail Macfarlane Saving Ref: RN03 Saving Title Allotment Charges Summary of Savings Proposal This option is to increase annual allotment charges from the existing charge of £23.47 per year to: 2025/26 - £60 per annum 2026/27 - £90 per annum 2027/28 - £120 per annum The Council has the 88 allotment sites at the current time as set out below: Location Number of Sites Castlegreen Street, Dumbarton 31 Round Riding Road, Dumbarton 7 Dillichip, Bonhill 50 Total 88 There are a further 50 sites in progress at Overburn, Dumbarton which will be available Summer 2025. This will increase the total number of sites to 138. There is currently a waiting list for an allotment of over 600 residents with a 10-year waiting list. At the current annual charge of £23.47, 138 sites would generate £3,239 in income/per annum (the current 2024/25 income based on 88 sites is £2,065) The annual rate currently increases in line with the Council’s decision on fees and charges. The updated charge and associated income is proposed to be: Year Existing 88 Sites Annual Charge Overburn 50 Sites Annual Charge Total Projected Income Current Budgeted Income Saving 2025/26 £60 £40* £7,280 £2,065 £5,125
Page 16
2026/27 £90 £90 £12,420 £2,065 £10,355 2027/28 £120 £120 £16,560 £2,065 £14,495 *part year charge for Overburn to reflect that sites not available for full year. Impact and Risk Associated with Proposed Savings Service Risk: There may be a reduction in uptake should charges increase but given the waiting list this is considered unlikely. The proposed charges have been reviewed against other local authorities and would appear to be significantly lower than neighbouring local authorities. People Risk: No FTE implication Reputational Risk: Residents on lower incomes may no longer be able to afford to have an allotment Saving (Cumulative) 2025/26 2026/27 2027/28 £000 FTE £000 FTE £000 FTE 5 0 10 0 14.5 0 FTE impact delivered through existing vacancies: N/A Equality Impact Assessment Completed: Yes EIA No: 1139
Page 17
2025/26 SAVING OPTION Chief Officer: Gail Macfarlane Saving Ref: RN26 Saving Title Review of Special Uplift Charge and Policy Summary of Savings Proposal The current fee for residents who request a special uplift is £29.48 for up to 10 items. Of the 10 items, there is no limit on how many can be large objects including beds and sofas. This means that often special uplifts require significant resource and time to undertake, and planning work can be challenging. Under this proposal, a special uplift fee of £40 would be implemented with the maximum number of items collected per uplift amended to five. This will ensure programming of work is accurate and reduce required time per appointment, making the service more efficient and enhancing the customer experience. Householders will still be able to dispose of any bulky household waste free of charge by taking the item to the Council's household waste recycling centres at Dalmoak and Old Kilpatrick. Impact and Risk Associated with Proposed Savings Service Risk: It is anticipated that the updated charging scheme will improve the programming of collections and resources will be allocated more efficiently. There is a risk that if the new fee is considered too high, there may be increased flytipping which would put additional pressure on the service. People Risk: N/A Reputational Risk: There is a reputational risk of increasing this cost. If householders do not consider the cost to be fair, satisfaction with the service and Council is likely to decrease. Any increase in fly tipping as a result of increased charges reflects negatively on the service. Saving (Cumulative) 2025/26 2026/27 2027/28 £000 FTE £000 FTE £000 FTE 23.5 0 23.5 0 23.5 0 Equality Impact Assessment Completed: Yes EIA No: 1135
Page 18
2025/26 SAVING OPTION Chief Officer: Alan Douglas Saving Ref: RR06 Saving Title Revised Legal Charges for Transactions Summary of Savings Proposal The Council charges legal fees to parties purchasing or leasing property from the organisation. Currently this fee is significantly less than equivalent commercial rates charged by private sector solicitor firms for work of a similar complexity. Under this proposal, the Council would review legal charges currently in place, increasing to bring them in line with average commercial rates for this work. This is expected to generate additional income of around £25k per annum. Impact and Risk Associated with Proposed Savings Service Risk: There is a risk that an increase in legal fees may dissuade some parties from leasing or buying a property here is also a possibility that if the fee is seen as prohibitive, a tenant/purchaser may refuse to pay, leaving the sum to be deducted from the Assets account. People Risk: N/A Reputational Risk: There is a risk that any significant increase in legal fees impacts negatively on the Council’s reputation, however by ensuring new fees are in line with the average commercial rate, this will be minimised. Saving (Cumulative) 2025/26 2026/27 2027/28 £000 FTE £000 FTE £000 FTE 25 0 25 0 25 0 FTE impact delivered through existing vacancies: 0 Note that the FTE Impact is an estimate – if the saving option is approved then the Chief Officer will assess the most effective way of delivering the saving target. Equality Impact Assessment Completed: Yes EIA No: 1165
Page 19
Appendix 4 – Detailed Management Adjustments 2025/26 MANAGEMENT ADJUSTMENT Chief Officer: Amanda Graham Saving Ref: CCF05 Saving Title Increase income from events Summary of Savings Proposal West Dunbartonshire has a number of attractive outdoor spaces including parks and other greenspace which are well served by public transport links. An opportunity exists to market these spaces to national event organisers and generate an income from pitch hire for the likes of food stalls or from hiring the spaces for hosting small scale entertainment events. This could supplement the existing events offer of the Pipe Band Championships, fireworks display and family fun days or offer the opportunity for new standalone events. Impact and Risk Associated with Proposed Savings Service Risk: The work would be delivered from within the Communications team and would require a review of work streams to accommodate. The Council currently generates income from traders at the Pipe Band Championships and fireworks display. This would be a new approach for the Council of actively seeking income beyond this and from marketing greenspaces for external events. People Risk: N/A Reputational Risk: This could have a positive impact through increased exposure for the Council and area. There is a risk that if the interest is not present from the market then the anticipated income may not be generated however the Council has had significant interest from traders and vendors for the current events offer. Saving (Cumulative) 2025/26 2026/27 2027/28 £000 FTE £000 FTE £000 FTE 8 0 8 0 8 0 FTE impact delivered through existing vacancies: N/A Note that the FTE Impact is an estimate – if the saving option is approved then the Chief Officer will assess the most effective way of delivering the saving target. Equality Impact Assessment Completed: Yes/ EIA No: 1111
Page 20
2025/26 MANAGEMENT ADJUSTMENT Chief Officer: Amanda Graham Saving Ref: CCF06 Saving Title Increase income from promoting film locations Summary of Savings Proposal Currently the Council receives ad-hoc requests from media companies to film in the West Dunbartonshire area. This generates a small income from the hire of specific buildings or locations with recent examples including filming for BBC Scotland dramas and documentaries. An opportunity exists to proactively promote the available locations in West Dunbartonshire to media outlets, creating bespoke pages on the website, and also to streamline the process and introduce a clear fee structure. Impact and Risk Associated with Proposed Savings Service Risk: The income is not guaranteed and is very much dependent on the nature of the programme or film and in turn the backdrop sought. There is a risk the income does not materialise. Creating bespoke webpages with strong imagery demonstrating the area’s potential, clear information on the process and fee structure in tandem with engaging with location agents and agencies such as Creative Scotland will help to mitigate against the risk of failing to generate income. People Risk: N/A Reputational Risk: The option could have a positive impact through increased exposure for the Council and area. Saving (Cumulative) 2025/26 2026/27 2027/28 £000 FTE £000 FTE £000 FTE 8 0 8 0 8 0 FTE impact delivered through existing vacancies: 0 Note that the FTE Impact is an estimate – if the saving option is approved then the Chief Officer will assess the most effective way of delivering the saving target. Equality Impact Assessment Completed: Yes EIA No: 1114
Page 21
2025/26 MANAGEMENT ADJUSTMENT Chief Officer: Amanda Graham Saving Ref: CCF13 Saving Title Remove telephone survey Summary of Savings Proposal As part of the Council’s work to monitor, evaluate and respond to performance, a monthly telephone resident satisfaction survey is undertaken by an external contractor, who surveys around 900 residents per annum to capture a representative reflection of how residents view the Council and gauge satisfaction with a range of services. The contractor also provides detailed data analysis which provides further insight into resident satisfaction. Due to changes in the way people communicate, it has been more challenging to reach residents via telephone in recent years which has impacted the quality of information gathered. Under this option, the telephone survey would be withdrawn and instead, members of the Citizens’ Panel would be asked to complete the satisfaction questions. Risk Associated with Proposed Savings Service Risk: There is a resource implication if satisfaction questions move to Citizens’ Panel as this is undertaken by the current Performance and Strategy team. As this is undertaken once a year, other work could be reviewed and planned accordingly. It is likely the number of responses received would be significantly reduced from the current telephone survey level. People Risk: N/A Reputational Risk: Resident satisfaction is a key measure of how the Council is performing, and within the Strategic Plan six indicators support this measure. Perception of the Council is also measured using five key indicators. The results of the telephone satisfaction survey are published on the website and reported to Council as part of the annual report. The impact would be mitigated by issuing the question set to the Citizens’ Panel and results would continue to be reported and used for performance monitoring and service planning as currently. The detailed data analysis currently provided by the telephone survey cannot be undertaken by the Performance and Strategy team. Saving (Cumulative) 2025/26 2026/27 2027/28 £000 FTE £000 FTE £000 FTE 9 0 9 0 9 0 FTE impact delivered through existing vacancies: N/A Equality Impact Assessment Completed: Yes EIA No: 1119
Page 22
2025/26 MANAGEMENT ADJUSTMENT Chief Officer: Amanda Graham Saving Ref: CCF15 Saving Title Performance and Strategy Budget Efficiencies Summary of Savings Proposal A reduction in hours associated with one of the Performance and Strategy Business Partner roles means this post is now 0.8FTE, while the budget remains at 1.0FTE. Under this option, the budget for this post will be reduced by the 0.2FTE to reflect the change in hours, generating a saving of £9,000. Risk Associated with Proposed Savings Service Risk: There is no impact on current service delivery as the hours of this post reduced some time ago and work was reviewed and planned accordingly at that time. People Risk: A 0.2 FTE vacancy would be removed from the establishment. Reputational Risk: N/A Saving (Cumulative) 2025/26 2026/27 2027/28 £000 FTE £000 FTE £000 FTE 9 0.2 9 0.2 9 0.2 FTE impact delivered through existing vacancies: 0.2 Note that the FTE Impact is an estimate – if the saving option is approved then the Chief Officer will assess the most effective way of delivering the saving target. Equality Impact Assessment Completed: Yes EIA No: 1112
Page 23
2025/26 MANAGEMENT ADJUSTMENT Chief Officer: Amanda Graham Saving Ref: CCF16 Saving Title Reduce design budget Summary of Savings Proposal The Communications Team currently supports the design of a number of key strategic documents, including the Annual Report, via an external contractor. Following a review of spend, we have identified an opportunity to reduce the budget allocated for this purpose without impacting on service. Under this option, the budget would reduce to £3,000 per annum generating a saving of £12,000 per annum. Risk Associated with Proposed Savings Service Risk: None. Spend has never exceeded the proposed £3,000 budget which will remain and current service levels will be maintained. People Risk: N/A Reputational Risk: N/A Saving (Cumulative) 2025/26 2026/27 2027/28 £000 FTE £000 FTE £000 FTE 12 0 12 0 12 0 FTE impact delivered through existing vacancies: N/A Note that the FTE Impact is an estimate – if the saving option is approved then the Chief Officer will assess the most effective way of delivering the saving target. Equality Impact Assessment Completed: Yes EIA No: 1109
Page 24
2025/26 MANAGEMENT ADJUSTMENT Chief Officer Laura Mason Saving Ref: EDU25 Saving Title Redesign of Leadership model for Professional Development and Children’s Services Teams Summary of Savings Proposal The Professional Learning and Children’s Services teams are responsible for offering continued opportunities for professional development to employees within Education. They support employees to maintain standards of registration, ensuring continued General Teaching Council Scotland (GTCS) and Scottish Social Services Council (SSSC) registration. The team also ensures employees have the appropriate training to meet the increased level of needs of children, young people and families via bespoke Additional Support Needs (ASN) professional learning, team teaching and targeted interventions. In addition, the team provide support to pupils and families through the Collaborative Support Service and Whole Family Wellbeing programme. The Professional Learning team is led by a 1.0 FTE Education Support Officer and a 1.0 FTE Principal Teacher, while the Children’s Services Team is led by 1.0 FTE Deputy Head Teacher and 1.0 FTE Principal Teacher. Under this proposal, pupils and employees would continue to receive support from these teams, with service delivery and leadership reviewed to create a more efficient delivery model. This will reflect changing needs while continuing to prioritise employees’ development and supporting pupils and families to improve outcomes. As part of the redesign, the current temporary Education Support Officer post will be replaced with a new 1.0 FTE Education Officer – Professional Learning and Leadership post to oversee the team and delivery of service. This role will be responsible for delivery of the revised model of professional learning; leading liaison with partners such as GTCS and Universities; supporting the upholding of Standards and gaining professional accreditation; and delivery of revised models of supporting Newly Qualified Teachers (NQTs) in schools. Due to the addition of the post above, a seconded Principal Teacher post currently operating as 1FTE can be reduced to 0.2FTE, with responsibility for providing resilience and supporting delivery of specific programmes of learning. In addition, a new 1.0 FTE Education Officer – Children’s services post will be created to oversee the Whole Family Wellbeing programme; planning and delivery of professional learning and development for ASN; and family learning and engagement. A 1.0 FTE Whole Family Wellbeing coordinator post will be created to support this. Due to these additions, the current 1.0FTE Deputy Head Teacher post overseeing the Collaborative Support Service can be removed. Impact and Risk Associated with Proposed Savings Service Risk: Any reduction in workforce presents a risk to service delivery and improvement due to less available resource. This will be mitigated by the redesign and introduction of posts which will ensure professional learning and support for employees, pupils and family is maintained. The proposed model will help to
Page 25
address the potential costs of wage conservation for those in acting posts and facilitates the expansion of wider council family supports via Whole Family Wellbeing programme. People Risk: The proposed model can be introduced with limited disruption to permanent employees because of imminent retirement of the existing DHT and the temporary nature of the seconded Education Support Officer Post. One seconded Officer will revert to her substantive Class Teacher post for 4 days of the week and retain her seconded PT post in the leadership team one day per week. Reduced resource means there is a risk that teaching staff do not feel supported to maintain professional updates and standards. This could lead to increased contact from Trade Unions and staff in need of guidance. Reputational Risk: There is a reputational risk if standards of education decline, and if employees do not feel supported. Saving (Cumulative) 2025/26 2026/27 2027/28 £000 FTE £000 FTE £000 FTE 6 0.8 21 0.8 21 0.8 FTE impact delivered through existing vacancies: 0 Note that the FTE Impact is an estimate – if the saving option is approved then the Chief Officer will assess the most effective way of delivering the saving target Equality Impact Assessment Completed: Yes EIA No: 1051
Page 26
2025/26 MANAGEMENT ADJUSTMENT Chief Officer: Victoria Rogers Saving Ref: PT01 Saving Title SWAN 2.0 (Scottish Wide Area Network) Savings Summary of Savings Proposal The Scottish Wide Area Network (SWAN) programme was set up to establish a single shared network and common ICT infrastructure across Scotland’s entire public sector. The Council have utilised this national framework agreement since 2018 for managing Wide Area Network (WAN) services. The original framework agreement expired in March 2023 with a runoff period up to March 2026 and a new iteration of this service (SWAN 2.0) is available. Due to a reduction in the Council’s requirement for line rentals, it is possible to migrate to SWAN 2.0 and significantly improve bandwidths for council WAN circuits while generating a saving. 20 Council sites have migrated to the new framework contract since August 2024, with another 8 sites on track to be migrated by the end of December 2024. The remainder of council sites (82 in total) will be migrated by July 2025. Current SWAN contract revenue costs: £283,972 per annum. New SWAN 2.0 contract revenue costs: £179,067 per annum. This will deliver an annual saving of approximately £104,905 once all sites have been migrated to the new framework pricing. Impact and Risk Associated with Proposed Savings Service Risk: There is a risk supplier delays and transition failures could affect the migration timeline causing delays to achieving monthly rental savings for individual circuits. In year savings could be affected by rental being paid for both old and new circuits for a short period of time until all lines are migrated. People Risk: N/A Reputational Risk: This project will increase bandwidth capacity at all council sites and have a positive impact to employees’ digital workplace experience. Saving (Cumulative) 2025/26 2026/27 2027/28 £000 FTE £000 FTE £000 FTE 0 0 104 0 104 0 FTE impact delivered through existing vacancies: N/A Equality Impact Assessment Completed: YES EIA No: 795
Page 27
2025/26 – MANAGEMENT ADJUSTMENT Chief Officer: Victoria Rogers Saving Ref: PT02 Saving Title Reduction in Mobile Phone Usage & Costs Summary of Savings Proposal Mobile Phone Reduction - An exercise to reduce Council mobile phone provision across all service areas has been in progress during 2023/24. A review of all mobile phone contracts was undertaken to identify, and terminate, any sims not in use. An initial savings target of £22k was agreed and has now been achieved. The exercise is continuing during 2024/25 and there is opportunity to deliver further estimated savings of approximately £5k per annum. New Contract -The Council has finalised a new contract with Vodafone (UK) Ltd which was awarded via the Scots Gov Mobile Voice and Data Framework. The new contract offers the same voice and data plans with approximately 45% saving on current monthly spend. This is estimated to save a total of £18k per annum. Impact and Risk Associated with Proposed Savings Service Risk: Access to Council email/diary or MS Teams can be maintained via employees’ personal phones as secure authentication measures are established. Some employees may choose not to use their personal phone, and therefore would be unable to access Council emails remotely. People Risk: N/A Reputational Risk: N/A Saving (Cumulative) 2025/26 2026/27 2027/28 £000 FTE £000 FTE £000 FTE 23 0 23 0 23 0 FTE impact delivered through existing vacancies: N/A Equality Impact Assessment: YES EIA No: 988
Page 28
2025/26 MANAGEMENT ADJUSTMENT Chief Officer: Laurence Slavin Saving Ref: RES09 Saving Title Review of charges for use of offices to external parties Summary of Savings Proposal It is proposed to review current capacity and usage across the Council operational estate to consider options for generating income – for example leasing floor space to interested partners or charging for use of office accommodation to partner organisations based within our operational estate. The target is to generate efficiencies / income of £7k in 2025/26 rising cumulatively to £15k in future years. Impact and Risk Associated with Proposed Savings Service Risk: N/A People Risk: N/A Reputational Risk: N/A Saving (Cumulative) 2025/26 2026/27 2027/28 £000 FTE £000 FTE £000 FTE 7 0 15 0 15 0 FTE impact delivered through existing vacancies: 0 Equality Impact Assessment Completed: Yes EIA No: 1144
Page 29
2025/26 MANAGEMENT ADJUSTMENT Chief Officer Laurence Slavin Saving Ref: RES13 Saving Title Historical lease review Summary of Savings Proposal A review of 31 historical leases by previous district/regional authorities which were offered at below market rent values or no rent was performed as part of a 2023/24 saving option and generated savings in 2023/24 and 2024/25. A further review has taken place to review the realised saving against the estimated saving and a further £15k can be assumed as annual income for 2025/26. Impact and Risk Associated with Proposed Savings Service Risk: N/A People Risk: N/A Reputational Risk: Community groups are likely to be affected and may not have funding to continue operating but alternative lower cost options will be identified if possible. Saving 2025/26 2026/27 2027/26 £000 FTE £000 FTE £000 FTE 15 0 15 0 15 0 Equality Impact Assessment Completed: Yes EIA No: 1142
Page 30
2025/26 MANAGEMENT ADJUSTMENT Chief Officer Laurence Slavin Saving Ref: RES15 Saving Title Reduce size of Building Services Summary of Savings Proposal The Council’s Building Services team has an equivalent of 4.5 FTE vacancies (combination of whole posts and employees who wish to reduce their hours through flexible retirement). The total employee costs relating to this is £228k. This option would remove these vacancies from the Council establishment. Impact and Risk Associated with Proposed Savings Service Risk: Council properties will not be inspected as frequently which could create a revenue pressure though increased revenue and maintenance costs to prevent establishments closing. This due to capital works not being carried out in a timely manner and/or a need to use external contractors if there is insufficient internal capacity. People Risk: N/A Reputational Risk: N/A Saving 2025/26 2026/27 2027/28 £000 FTE £000 FTE £000 FTE 228 4.5 228 4.5 228 4.5 FTE impact delivered through existing vacancies: 4.5 Note that the FTE Impact is an estimate – if the saving option is approved then the Chief Officer will assess the most effective way of delivering the saving target Equality Impact Assessment Completed: Yes EIA No: 1143
Page 31
2025/26 MANAGEMENT ADJUSTMENT Chief Officer: Gail Macfarlane Saving Ref: RN01 Saving Title Ceasing Saturday Funerals Summary of Savings Proposal The Council manages the following cemeteries and churchyards: • New Dumbarton • Dumbarton • Vale of Leven • North Dalnottar • Old Dalnottar • Kilbowie • Old Kilpatrick • Kilmaronock The staffing of this is undertaken through standby and overtime. The service is unable to resource the operational workforce required to work on the Saturday. Consequently the ability to book Saturday funerals has been suspended since Spring 2024. This option would cease the provision of funerals on Saturdays on a permanent basis saving £10k per annum. Impact and Risk Associated with Proposed Savings Service Risk: There would be no recommencement of Saturday burial services. This may create delays accessing a burial appointment. People Risk: There would be a reduction in standby and overtime payments, no reduction in FTE. Reputational Risk: There have been limited Saturday funerals requested however this does mean users may be required to wait for longer to access a time in periods where the resource is busy. Saving (Cumulative) 2025/26 2026/27 2027/28 £000 FTE £000 FTE £000 FTE 10 0 10 0 10 0 FTE impact delivered through existing vacancies: NA Equality Impact Assessment Completed: Yes EIA No: 1137
Page 32
2025/26 MANAGEMENT ADJUSTMENT Chief Officer: Gail Macfarlane Saving Ref: RN07 Saving Title Capitalisation of Play Park Fitter Summary of Savings Proposal This management adjustment will capitalise £40k of staffing costs for a play park fitter for a period of 5 years to deliver the playpark upgrade programme. Impact and Risk Associated with Proposed Savings Service Risk: N/A People Risk: N/A Reputational Risk: N/A Saving (Cumulative) 2025/26 2026/27 2027/28 £000 FTE £000 FTE £000 FTE 40 0 40 0 40 0 FTE impact delivered through existing vacancies: NA Equality Impact Assessment Completed: Yes EIA No: 1140
Page 33
2025/26 MANAGEMENT ADJUSTMENT Chief Officer: Gail Macfarlane Saving Ref: RN09 Saving Title Phase 2 Hire Vehicles Summary of Savings Proposal The Council currently hires a number of vehicles that are required to undertake essential service delivery within Roads, spending approximately £194,000 per year. This includes five gritters which are hired for circa 26 weeks at a cost of approximately £119,000 per year and hot box plant with associated vehicles to deliver defect repairs and resurfacing which are hired for a similar period at a cost of approximately £75,000 per year. The gritters are used throughout winter, and the majority of the work undertaken by the hot box vehicles is done in spring and summer. Under this option, the Council would stop hiring these vehicles and instead purchase five new gritters. The gritters can be used as hot box vehicles after the winter period to ensure vehicles are in use year-round. The borrowing costs are funded through revenue and are estimated at £23,000 per year therefore a full year net saving is anticipated at £171,000. Risk Associated with Proposed Savings Service Risk: This proposal will increase efficiency and reliability as the service will have more control over accessing vehicles when required. This change will also mean the service has the ability to undertake permanent repairs for other services within council such as housing, grounds etc at a lower cost. People Risk: N/A Reputational Risk: N/A Saving (Cumulative) 2025/26 2026/27 2027/28 £000 FTE £000 FTE £000 FTE 131 0 171 0 171 0 FTE impact delivered through existing vacancies: N/A Note that the FTE Impact is an estimate – if the saving option is approved then the Chief Officer will assess the most effective way of delivering the saving target. Equality Impact Assessment Completed: Yes EIA No: 1129
Page 34
2025/26 MANAGEMENT ADJUSTMENT Chief Officer: Alan Douglas Saving Ref: RR09 Saving Title Assistant Registrar post Summary of Savings Proposal Registration Services is currently made up 6.4 FTE posts, which includes 1.0 FTE G8 Senior Registrar, 1.6 FTE G5 Depute Registrar, 3.8 FTE G4 Assistant Registrar. The team currently has a vacant 0.5FTE Assistant Registrar post in its establishment and under this option, the post would be removed generating a saving of £18k per annum. Impact and Risk Associated with Proposed Savings Service Risk: As the post is already vacant, the service workload has already been reviewed and planned accordingly so no detrimental service impact is anticipated. People Risk: The post is vacant and so no detrimental people impact as above. Reputational Risk: A reduction in the team or any delay in processing times comes with a reputational risk due to the sensitivity of the life events being dealt with by Registration Services. This has been mitigated by undertaking a review of work and planning accordingly when the post first became vacant and no severe impact is anticipated. Saving (Cumulative) 2025/26 2026/27 2027/28 £000 FTE £000 FTE £000 FTE 18 0.5 18 0.5 18 0.5 FTE impact delivered through existing vacancies: 0.5 Note that the FTE Impact is an estimate – if the saving option is approved then the Chief Officer will assess the most effective way of delivering the saving target. Equality Impact Assessment Completed: Yes EIA No: 1101
Page 35
Appendix 5 – Equality Impact Assessments Assessment No 1139 Owner Gail Macfarlane Resource Regeneration, Environment and Growth Service Budget R and N FirstName Surname Job Title Head Officer Gail MacFarlane Chief Officer Members Ricardo Rea Greenspace Manager Biodiversity Officer (Please note: the word 'policy' is used as shorthand for strategy policy function or financial decision) Policy Title RN03 Review Allotment charges The aim, objective, purpose and intended outcome of policy Increase charges to access an allotment. The current charge is £23.47 per year. The following allotment sites are in use: Castlegreen St 31 plots Round Riding Road 7 plots Dillichip 50 plots There is currently a waiting list of over 600 residents with a 10 year waiting list. There are 50 plots in progress at Overburn, these will be available Summer 25/26. Total for 25/26 138 full plots. The updated charge is proposed, as below Year 1 £60, £1.15 per week Year 2 £90, £1.73 per week Year 3 £120, £2.30 per week The proposal will continue to ensure allotments are available for use. Service/Partners/Stakeholders/service users involved in the development and/or implementation of policy. Greenspace, Biodiversity
Page 36
Does the proposals involve the procurement of any goods or services? No If yes please confirm that you have contacted our procurement services to discuss your requirements. No SCREENING You must indicate if there is any relevance to the four areas Duty to eliminate discrimination (E), advance equal opportunities (A) or foster good relations (F) Yes Relevance to Human Rights (HR) No Relevance to Health Impacts (H) Yes Relevance to Social Economic Impacts (SE) Yes Who will be affected by this policy? Those residents that access allotments. Who will be/has been involved in the consultation process? Greenspace Service, Biodiversity Please outline any particular need/barriers which equality groups may have in relation to this policy list evidence you are using to support this and whether there is any negative impact on particular groups. Specific group to consider Needs Evidence Impact Age Need to assess differential impact as we know about differing levels of use. We do not have solid data about the makeup of allotment users. However officer knowledge would suggest that users tend to be older. More likely to affect more older people than younger people. Disability Gender Reassign Marriage & Civil Partnership Pregnancy &
Page 37
Maternity Race Religion and Belief Sex Need to assess differential impact as we know about differing levels of use. We do not have solid data about the makeup of allotment users. However officer knowledge would suggest that users tend to be male. More likely to affect more men than women Sexual Orientation Human Rights Health The Council has a focus on health and wellbeing. It is generally accepted that allotment access is good for mental and physical health 'The proven mental health benefits of spending time outdoors are increasingly being heeded and a recent study by academics at the University of Sheffield outlined the wellbeing benefits of allotment gardening.' If increases in prices reduced allotment use this would be negative in terms of health impacts. Social & Economic Impact The Council has a focus on economic well being Large proportionate rise, however total expenditure across year would be less than £100 in year 3. Would tend to me more difficult for people who are more income deprived, or have less disposable income Cross Cutting Important to look at cross cutting impacts Traditional users of allotments are more likely to be male and older. Some UK level data suggests more growing use by younger age groups and more women Increase in costs may make it more difficult to for people to rent allotments.
Page 38
Policy has a negative impact on an equality group, but is still to be implemented, please provide justification for this. The cost may be considered unaffordable to those on a lower income Average costs in UK for allotments: https://www.allaboutallotments.co.uk/allotments-cost/ Will the impact of the policy be monitored and reported on an ongoing basis? The uptake will be monitored and reported for consideration Q7 What is you recommendation for this policy? Introduce Please provide a meaningful summary of how you have reached the recommendation EIA 1139: Increases in prices, if they reduced allotment use would have a negative impact in terms of health and would likely affect more men than work and more older people than younger people. There could be less affordable to those on a lower incomes. Benchmarking has been undertaken which suggests that the proposed fee structure is comparable to neighbouring local authorities.
Page 39
Assessment No 1135 Owner Gail MacFarlane Resource Regeneration, Environment and Growth Service Budget R and N FirstName Surname Job Title Head Officer Gail Macfarlane Chief Officer - Roads & Neighbourhood Members Waste Service (Please note: the word 'policy' is used as shorthand for strategy policy function or financial decision) Policy Title RN26 Special Uplift Charge The aim, objective, purpose and intended outcome of policy Review of Special Uplift Charge and Policy. The Current charge for special uplift is £29.48. This is for up to 10 items which could be 10 large items that can require significant resource and time to uplift. The proposal is to implement a new charging scheme as follows: Up to 5 items £40 No special uplift of over 5 items, should additional uplift of items be required multiple uplifts may be purchased. 24/25 Anticipated full year income £48,500 Potential income 25/26: Assume 1400 special uplifts 1000 @ £40 = £40,000 400 @ £80 = £32,000 (2 uplifts due to uplift above 5 items) Total = £72,000 Service/Partners/Stakeholders/service users involved in the development and/or implementation of policy. Waste Services
Page 40
Does the proposals involve the procurement of any goods or services? No If yes please confirm that you have contacted our procurement services to discuss your requirements. No SCREENING You must indicate if there is any relevance to the four areas Duty to eliminate discrimination (E), advance equal opportunities (A) or foster good relations (F) Yes Relevance to Human Rights (HR) No Relevance to Health Impacts (H) No Relevance to Social Economic Impacts (SE) Yes Who will be affected by this policy? All users of the service Who will be/has been involved in the consultation process? Waste Service Please outline any particular need/barriers which equality groups may have in relation to this policy list evidence you are using to support this and whether there is any negative impact on particular groups. Specific group to consider Needs Evidence Impact Age Need to assess impacts on different age groups. For example members of age groups can be more or less likely to be in relative poverty Those under 35 are more likely to be in relative poverty than older age groups. 15years ago 25% of pensioners (state pension age) in Scotland were living in poverty, compared to 15% now. Single pensioners over the age of 75 more likely to live in poverty Some potential negative effect in terms some older people (over 75), more likely to affect people up to the age of 35. Disability Need to assess impacts on disabled versus non disabled Disabled people/households with a disabled person as a Some potential negative effect on disabled people.
Page 41
people. member are more likely to be living in relative poverty than non disabled people. Gender Reassign Marriage & Civil Partnership Pregnancy & Maternity Race Need to look at differential impacts that relate to income for this group. People from most non- white minority ethnic groups are more likely to be in relative poverty after housing than those from most white ethnic groups. Some potential negative effect. Religion and Belief Sex Need to look at differential impacts that relate to income for this group. Women are more likely to be income deprived than men. 39% of single women with children are living in poverty. Some potential negative effect. Sexual Orientation Human Rights Health Social & Economic Impact Need to look at differential impacts that relate to income. Income deprived people may find it more difficulty to meet the increased charge. Some potential negative effect. Cross Cutting Important to examine how impacts may interact and links to any other relevant issues. Should a charge be considered too high there may be a risk of increased fly tipping and contamination of bins. If residents do not wish or are able to pay special uplift charge waste may be disposed of through fly tipping or Some potential negative effect for communities and the Council.
Page 42
contaminating bins Assessment No 1165 Owner Alan Douglas Resource Regeneration, Environment and Growth Service Budget R and R FirstName Surname Job Title Head Officer Alan Douglas Chief Officer: Regulatory and Regeneration Members Alan Douglas (Please note: the word 'policy' is used as shorthand for strategy policy function or financial decision) Policy Title RR06 - Revised Legal Charges for Transactions The aim, objective, purpose and intended outcome of policy The proposal would see a substantial increase in charges to parties purchasing or leasing property from the Council. The revised level would equate to what is understood to be representative of commercial rates charged by private solicitor firms for work of similar complexity Service/Partners/Stakeholders/service users involved in the development and/or implementation of policy. Legal Services Does the proposals involve the procurement of any goods or services? No If yes please confirm that you have contacted our procurement services to discuss your requirements. No SCREENING You must indicate if there is any relevance to the four areas Duty to eliminate discrimination (E), advance equal opportunities (A) or foster good relations (F) No Relevance to Human Rights (HR) No Relevance to Health Impacts (H) No Relevance to Social Economic Impacts (SE) No
Page 43
Who will be affected by this policy? Who will be/has been involved in the consultation process?
Page 44
Policy has a negative impact on an equality group, but is still to be implemented, please provide justification for this. The special uplift cost proposed is lower than some of the neighbouring local authorities but higher than others and there is also a mix of charging schemes, however increased charges could still be negative for some groups. The new criteria introduced of 5 items max will improve programming of work and required time so will improve efficiencies and customer experience. Will the impact of the policy be monitored and reported on an ongoing basis? Yes Q7 What is you recommendation for this policy? Introduce Please provide a meaningful summary of how you have reached the recommendation EIA 1135: The increase in special uplift policy may have some greater negatively impact on some groups detailed section 2 of the EIA as they are more likely to be income deprived or in relative poverty, these are women, disabled people, some BME groups, people under 35 and people over 75. There could be an increase in fly typing and contaminated bins. The impact of additional fly tipping and/or contaminated bins will be monitored and communication strategy carried out to ensure all aware of waste strategy and disposal opportunities.
Page 45
Assessment No 1111 Owner Amanda Graham Resource Transformation Service Budget CCF FirstName Surname Job Title Head Officer Amanda Graham Chief Officer Members Amanda Graham Chief Officer Lauren Crooks Strategic Communication, Culture and Performance Manager (Please note: the word 'policy' is used as shorthand for strategy policy function or financial decision) Policy Title CCF05 Increase events income The aim, objective, purpose and intended outcome of policy West Dunbartonshire has a number of attractive outdoor spaces including parks and other greenspace which are well served by public transport links. An opportunity exists to market these spaces to national event organisers and generate an income from pitch hire for the likes of food stalls or from hiring the spaces for hosting small scale entertainment events. This could supplement the existing events offer of the Pipe Band Championships, fireworks display and family fun days or offer the opportunity for new standalone events. Service/Partners/Stakeholders/service users involved in the development and/or implementation of policy. Communications Team Does the proposals involve the procurement of any goods or services? No If yes, please confirm that you have contacted our procurement services to discuss your requirements. No SCREENING You must indicate if there is any relevance to the four areas Duty to eliminate discrimination (E), advance equal opportunities (A) or foster good relations (F) No Relevance to Human Rights (HR) No Relevance to Health Impacts (H) No
Page 46
Relevance to Social Economic Impacts (SE) Yes Who will be affected by this policy? Council in terms of income, potentially some benefit to the local economy. Who will be/has been involved in the consultation process? Communications Team
Page 47
Please outline any particular need/barriers which equality groups may have in relation to this policy list evidence you are using to support this and whether there is any negative impact on particular groups. Specific group to consider Needs Evidence Impact Age Disability Gender Reassign Marriage & Civil Partnership Pregnancy & Maternity Race Religion and Belief Sex Sexual Orientation Human Rights Health Social & Economic Impact We need to evaluate the potential economic benefits to the Council and the area. It is impossible at this stage to quantify economic impacts. There is an opportunity to increase income into the area, this is more likely to benefit the Council, but less likely to reduce wider socio- economic inequalities significantly. Cross Cutting
Page 48
Assessment No 1114 Owner Amanda Graham Resource Transformation Service Budget CCF FirstName Surname Job Title Head Officer Amanda Graham Chief Officer Members Lauren Crooks Amanda Graham Ricardo Rea (Please note: the word 'policy' is used as shorthand for strategy policy function or financial decision) Policy Title CCF06 Review film locations and formalise fee arrangements The aim, objective, purpose and intended outcome of policy Currently the Council receives ad hoc requests from media companies to film in the West Dunbartonshire area. This generates a small income from the hire of specific buildings or location with recent examples including filming for BBC Scotland dramas and documentaries. An opportunity exists to promote the locations available in West Dunbartonshire to media outlets, creating bespoke pages on the website and also to streamline the process and fee structure. Service/Partners/Stakeholders/service users involved in the development and/or implementation of policy. Communications Team Does the proposals involve the procurement of any goods or services? Yes If yes, please confirm that you have contacted our procurement services to discuss your requirements. No SCREENING You must indicate if there is any relevance to the four areas Duty to eliminate discrimination (E), advance equal opportunities (A) or foster good relations (F) No Relevance to Human Rights (HR) No Relevance to Health Impacts (H) No
Page 49
Relevance to Social Economic Impacts (SE) Yes Who will be affected by this policy? Council in terms of income, potentially some benefit to the local economy. Who will be/has been involved in the consultation process? Communications Team Please outline any particular need/barriers which equality groups may have in relation to this policy list evidence you are using to support this and whether there is any negative impact on particular groups. Specific group to consider Needs Evidence Impact Age Disability Gender Reassign Marriage & Civil Partnership Pregnancy & Maternity Race Religion and Belief Sex Sexual Orientation Human Rights Health Social & Economic Impact We need to evaluate potential socio- economic impacts It is impossible at this stage to quantify economic impacts. There is an opportunity to increase income into the area, this is more likely to benefit the Council, but less likely to reduce wider socio- economic inequalities significantly. Cross Cutting
Page 50
Policy has a negative impact on an equality group, but is still to be implemented, please provide justification for this. N/A Will the impact of the policy be monitored and reported on an ongoing basis? N/A Q7 What is you recommendation for this policy? Introduce Please provide a meaningful summary of how you have reached the recommendation EIA 1114: There is an opportunity to increase income into the area, this is more likely to benefit the Council, but less likely to reduce wider socio- economic inequalities significantly. It is impossible at this stage to quantify economic impacts.
Page 51
Assessment No 1119 Owner Amanda Graham Resource Transformation Service Budget CCF FirstName Surname Job Title Head Officer Amanda Graham Chief Officer Members Amanda Graham Ricardo Rea Nicola Docherty (Please note: the word 'policy' is used as shorthand for strategy, policy, function or financial decision) Policy Title CCF13 Remove Telephone Survey The aim, objective, purpose and intended outcome of policy In recent years, it has been more challenging to reach residents via telephone due to changes in the way people communicate, including a reduction in the use of landline telephones. This has impacted on the quality of information gathered. Under this option, the telephone survey would be withdrawn and instead, members of the Citizen’s Panel would be asked to complete the satisfaction question set and help the Council understand satisfaction. Service/Partners/Stakeholders/service users involved in the development and/or implementation of policy. Performance and Strategy Team Does the proposals involve the procurement of any goods or services? No If yes, please confirm that you have contacted our procurement services to discuss your requirements. No SCREENING You must indicate if there is any relevance to the four areas Duty to eliminate discrimination (E), advance equal opportunities (A) or foster good relations (F) Yes Relevance to Human Rights (HR) No
Page 52
Relevance to Health Impacts (H) No Relevance to Social Economic Impacts (SE) No Who will be affected by this policy? N/A Who will be/has been involved in the consultation process? N/A Please outline any particular need/barriers which equality groups may have in relation to this policy list evidence you are using to support this and whether there is any negative impact on particular groups. Specific group to consider Needs Evidence Impact Age Important to ensure that overall, we get the views of different age groups. The number of adults who have either never used the internet or have not used it in the last three months, described as “internet non-users”, has been declining over recent years. Since 2011, this number has almost halved, but in 2018 there were still 5.3 million adults in the UK, or 10.0% of the adult UK population. Older people tend to use the internet less than younger people Exploring the digital divide Unlikely to be significantly negative for older people in terms of getting views from this group. The Citizens Panel has good representation from the older age group. Disability Important that overall, we get the views of a range of disabled people. The number of adults who have either never used the internet or have not used it in the last three months, described as “internet non-users”, has been declining over recent years. Since 2011, this number has almost Unlikely to be significantly negative in terms of getting views from this group. The West Dunbartonshire Equality Forum has good representation from
Page 53
halved, but in 2018 there were still 5.3 million adults in the UK, or 10.0% of the adult UK population. Disabled people tend to use the internet less than non disabled people, this cross cuts with increasing age. Exploring the digital divide Examination of responses from the telephone survey demographics compared with those of the citizens panel does not suggest that there is a significantly higher proportion from the former of disabled people. disability groups. Gender Reassign Marriage & Civil Partnership Pregnancy & Maternity Race Religion and Belief Sex Sexual Orientation Human Rights UNCRC considerations in this instance 'participation'. Very few of the respondents to the telephone survey are under the age of 18. Removal of the telephone survey would not significantly negatively affect our reach to Children and Young People. Health
Page 54
Social & Economic Impact Important to consider different socio economic groups (SEG). No evidence that lack of a telephone survey would decrease our reach with any income group. Likely neutral in terms SEG. Cross Cutting We need to be able to take into account the views of different protected groups in WDC. For the questions areas they have in common, views on Council services have generally been more positive from telephone survey respondents than Citizens Panel respondents. Though this has narrowed with telephone survey responses be closer to the Citizens Panel respondents. Unlikely to significantly impact our ability to look at differing views of protected groups. The telephone survey does provide more frequency, but we get a wider range of equality data from the Citizens Panel responses. Policy has a negative impact on an equality group, but is still to be implemented, please provide justification for this. Information from disabled people and older people is available in representative proportions from Citizens Panels and Budget surveys. We can also draw on information and discussions from other engagement forums, such as the West Dunbartonshire Equality Forum, Community Councils Forum and a range of other consultations. Will the impact of the policy be monitored and reported on an ongoing basis? Membership of the Citizens Panel is reviewed on an ongoing basis, where a particular group is identified as being underrepresented a targeted approach to increasing participation is applied. Q7 What is you recommendation for this policy? Introduce Please provide a meaningful summary of how you have reached the recommendation EIA 1119: Whilst older people and disabled people are less likely to be internet users, the EIA did not find any likely significant impact in being able to reach these groups. The Citizens Panel survey other surveys and consultation methods have adequate reach into these groups that is proportionate or more than proportionate to the West Dunbartonshire population. It should be noted that it will not be possible to run the question set through the Citizens Panel four times a year as currently happens with the telephone survey, both for resource reasons and the likelihood that Citizen Panel respondent will be less likely to respond as frequently.
Page 55
Assessment No 1112 Owner Amanda Graham Resource Transformation Service Budget CCF FirstName Surname Job Title Head Officer Amanda Graham Chief Officer Members Amanda Graham Ricardo Rea Nicola Docherty (Please note: the word 'policy' is used as shorthand for strategy, policy, function or financial decision) Policy Title CCF15 Performance and Strategy Budget Efficiencies The aim, objective, purpose and intended outcome of policy A reduction post size from 1 FTE to 0.8 FTE. Under this option, the budget for this post will be reduced by the 0.2 FTE to reflect the change in hours, generating a saving of £9,000. The current post holder has been working at 0.8 FTE for a number of years. Service/Partners/Stakeholders/service users involved in the development and/or implementation of policy. Performance and Strategy Team
Page 56
Does the proposals involve the procurement of any goods or services? No If yes please confirm that you have contacted our procurement services to discuss your requirements. No SCREENING You must indicate if there is any relevance to the four areas Duty to eliminate discrimination (E), advance equal opportunities (A) or foster good relations (F) No Relevance to Human Rights (HR) No Relevance to Health Impacts (H) No Relevance to Social Economic Impacts (SE) No Who will be affected by this policy? N/A Who will be/has been involved in the consultation process? N/A Please outline any particular need/barriers which equality groups may have in relation to this policy list evidence you are using to support this and whether there is any negative impact on particular groups. Policy has a negative impact on an equality group, but is still to be implemented, please provide justification for this. N/A Will the impact of the policy be monitored and reported on an ongoing basis? N/A Q7 What is you recommendation for this policy? Introduce Please provide a meaningful summary of how you have reached the recommendation Screening 1112: No current employee will be affected in terms of employment, or hours or increased burden, and current service provision would unaffected. This does mean that in future the team would not be able to increase hours to meet any extra demand. The proposal is not relevant to any of the areas we impact assess so no assessment has been carried out.
Page 57
Assessment No 1109 Owner Amanda Graham Resource Transformation Service Budget CCF FirstName Surname Job Title Head Officer Amanda Graham Chief Officer Members Amanda Graham Ricardo Rea Lauren Crooks (Please note: the word 'policy' is used as shorthand for strategy, policy, function or financial decision) Policy Title CCF16 Reduce Design Budget The aim, objective, purpose and intended outcome of policy The Communications Team currently supports the design of a number of key strategic documents, including the Annual Report, via an external contractor. Following a review of spend, we have identified an opportunity to reduce the budget allocated for this purpose without impacting on service.
Page 58
Under this option, the budget would reduce to £3,000 per annum generating a saving of £12,000 per annum. Service/Partners/Stakeholders/service users involved in the development and/or implementation of policy. CCF Chief Officer Comms Manager Performance and Strategy officer Does the proposals involve the procurement of any goods or services? No If yes, please confirm that you have contacted our procurement services to discuss your requirements. No SCREENING You must indicate if there is any relevance to the four areas Duty to eliminate discrimination (E), advance equal opportunities (A) or foster good relations (F) No Relevance to Human Rights (HR) No Relevance to Health Impacts (H) No Relevance to Social Economic Impacts (SE) No Who will be affected by this policy? N/A Who will be/has been involved in the consultation process? N/A Please outline any particular need/barriers which equality groups may have in relation to this policy list evidence you are using to support this and whether there is any negative impact on particular groups. Policy has a negative impact on an equality group, but is still to be implemented, please provide justification for this. N/A Will the impact of the policy be monitored and reported on an ongoing basis? N/A Q7 What is you recommendation for this policy? Introduce Please provide a meaningful summary of how you have reached the recommendation
Page 59
Screening 1109: This proposal is not relevant to any of the impact areas we assess, so no EIA is required. There will be no effect on service delivery or staffing in taking this efficiency. Assessment No 1060 Owner Claire Cusick Resource Transformation Service Budget Ed FirstName Surname Job Title Head Officer Claire Cusick senior education officer Members children's services team (Please note: the word 'policy' is used as shorthand for strategy, policy, function or financial decision) Policy Title EDU25 Redesign Leadership in Children, Young People and Families Teams The aim, objective, purpose and intended outcome of policy The proposed re-design option is: • Reduce the seconded PT prof learning post from 1 FTE to 0.2 • Remove ESO Prof learning post • Create a new EO Prof Learning and Leadership post which re-
Page 60
aligns duties relating to the professional learning and leadership team and delivery of service • Remove the CSS DHT post in Dec’24 • Create new EO Children’s Services Role in Aug’24 which has a broader remit including CSS, family learning and help and prof learning and leadership in the ASN sector. Service/Partners/Stakeholders/service users involved in the development and/or implementation of policy. Senior Officers children's services officers professional learning officers Educational Psychologist Does the proposals involve the procurement of any goods or services? No If yes, please confirm that you have contacted our procurement services to discuss your requirements. No SCREENING You must indicate if there is any relevance to the four areas Duty to eliminate discrimination (E), advance equal opportunities (A) or foster good relations (F) Yes Relevance to Human Rights (HR) Yes Relevance to Health Impacts (H) No Relevance to Social Economic Impacts (SE) No Who will be affected by this policy? Staff, Pupils primarily Who will be/has been involved in the consultation process? Context: A reduction to the Prof Learning team will reduce some ability to support this and necessitate a service delivery re-design. Recent budget cuts have reduced the additional deprivation allowance available to school, the additional management time schools have and the additional funding available to school leaders. These previously enabled school leaders to allocate some staff out of classes to plan for and provide the additional support that children needed. This has been reduced significantly and schools are therefore more reliant than ever on the support and expertise of the CSS and professional learning teams in building capacity in our school staff. This proposal will allow us to ensure continuity in supports and service plans. The proposal will ensure our ability to continue the work of the Additional Support Needs Strategy which has been very successful in building skillsets of staff, improving approaches to learning and teaching and in ensuring learners experiences are equal to that of their peers who do not have an additional support need.
Page 61
In addition, these posts will be crucial in ensuring continuity in the development of our Inclusive Practices approaches CIRCLE and SCERTS. Both have and will continue to require additional management and support to embed and make a difference. In time this will keep WDC children and young people in WDC and reduce potential need for expensive out of authority placements. Please outline any particular need/barriers which equality groups may have in relation to this policy list evidence you are using to support this and whether there is any negative impact on particular groups. Specific group to consider Needs Evidence Impact Age Disability The Council has a duty to ensure services are accessible to disabled people. Some children with ASN are disabled in terms of the Equality Act. A reduction to the Professional Learning team will reduce some ability to support this and necessitate a service delivery re- design. Create new EO Children’s Services Role in Aug’24 which has a broader remit including CSS, family learning and help and prof learning and leadership in the ASN sector. Positive. The proposal will ensure our ability to continue the work of the Additional Support Needs Strategy which has been very successful in building skillsets of staff, improving approaches to learning and teaching and in ensuring learners experiences are equal to that of their peers who do not have an additional support need. Gender Reassign Marriage & Civil Partnership
Page 62
Pregnancy & Maternity Race Religion and Belief Sex Sexual Orientation Human Rights We need to ensure that services are provided in a way that is in line with the Human Rights Act/ECHR. We need to consider the requirements of the UNCRC incorporation, in this instance primarily provision. The redesign should support children's rights in terms of provision. See above under disability. Positive in terms of maintaining and improving provision. Health Social & Economic Impact Cross Cutting We need to look at how elements may interact in practice. A reduction to the Prof Learning team will reduce some ability to support this and necessitate a service delivery re-design. Recent budget cuts have reduced the additional deprivation allowance available to school, the additional management time schools have and the additional funding available to school leaders. These previously enabled school leaders to allocate some staff out of classes to plan for and provide the additional support that children needed. The proposal will ensure our ability to continue the work of the Additional Support Needs Strategy which has been very successful in Services can be maintained. Neutral in terms of staffing.
Page 63
building skillsets of staff, improving approaches to learning and teaching and in ensuring learners experiences are equal to that of their peers who do not have an additional support need. In addition, these posts will be crucial in ensuring continuity in the development of our Inclusive Practices approaches CIRCLE and SCERTS. Both have and will continue to require additional management and support to embed and make a difference. In time this will keep WDC children and young people in WDC and reduce potential need for expensive out of authority placements. There will be a reduction in post but as its a post used on secondment basis, there is no job loss. Policy has a negative impact on an equality group, but is still to be implemented, please provide justification for this. N/A Will the impact of the policy be monitored and reported on an ongoing basis? N/A Q7 What is you recommendation for this policy? Introduce Please provide a meaningful summary of how you have reached the recommendation EIA 1060: The service redesign should mitigate any potential negative impacts and maintain provision and support for ASN pupils. The impact is this likely to be neutral in terms of provision, and positive in terms of a sustainable approach being in place in the context of past reductions in resources which affect service provision in this area. Assessment No 795 Owner Andrew Cameron Resource Transformation Service People and Technology
Page 64
FirstName Surname Job Title Head Officer Andrew Cameron ICT Infrastructure Section Lead Members Andrew Cameron - ICT Infrastructure Section Lead Michelle McKenzie - Procurement Officer (Please note: the word 'policy' is used as shorthand for strategy, policy, function or financial decision) Policy Title PT01 SWAN Savings The aim, objective, purpose and intended outcome of policy Join SWAN 2.0 Framework as a Framework platform to procure managed WAN/LAN/WLAN Remote access and Security Services. Service/Partners/Stakeholders/service users involved in the development and/or implementation of policy. Procurement/ICT Does the proposals involve the procurement of any goods or services? Yes If yes, please confirm that you have contacted our procurement services to discuss your requirements. Yes SCREENING You must indicate if there is any relevance to the four areas Duty to eliminate discrimination (E), advance equal opportunities (A) or foster good relations (F) No Relevance to Human Rights (HR) No Relevance to Health Impacts (H) No Relevance to Social Economic Impacts (SE) Yes Who will be affected by this policy? N/A Who will be/has been involved in the consultation process? N/A Please outline any particular need/barriers which equality groups may have in relation to this policy list evidence you are using to support this and whether there is any negative impact on particular groups.
Page 65
Specific group to consider Needs Evidence Impact Age Cross Cutting Disability Social & Economic Impact The Council has a duty to obtain best value. The Council must keep in mind the Fairer Scotland Duty when making strategic financial decisions. Where relevant contracts take into account Community Benefit Clauses, however the contract size and type does not indicate a strategic decision that has the ability to reduce socio economic inequalities. Neutral. Sex Gender Reassign Health Human Rights Marriage & Civil Partnership Pregnancy & Maternity Race Religion and Belief Sexual Orientation Policy has a negative impact on an equality group, but is still to be implemented, please provide justification for this. N/A Will the impact of the policy be monitored and reported on an ongoing basis? N/A Q7 What is you recommendation for this policy? Introduce Please provide a meaningful summary of how you have reached the recommendation EIA 795: Fairer Scotland duty is relevant due to size of contract. We have given
Page 66
consideration to any opportunities through the contracting process to reduce socio economic inequalities, but no opportunities present themselves in this case.
Page 67
Assessment No 988 Owner Dorothy Nicolson Resource Transformation Service People and Technology FirstName Surname Job Title Head Officer Dorothy Nicolson ICT Section Head Members Andrew Mackie Procurement Officer James Gallacher, ICT Manager Victoria Rogers, People & Technology Chief Officer (Please note: the word 'policy' is used as shorthand for strategy, policy, function or financial decision) Policy Title PT02 Vodafone contract saving The aim, objective, purpose and intended outcome of policy Contract renewal Service/Partners/Stakeholders/service users involved in the development and/or implementation of policy. James Gallacher, ICT Manager Victoria Rogers, People & Technology Chief Officer Does the proposals involve the procurement of any goods or services? Yes If yes, please confirm that you have contacted our procurement services to discuss your requirements. Yes SCREENING You must indicate if there is any relevance to the four areas Duty to eliminate discrimination (E), advance equal opportunities (A) or foster good relations (F) No Relevance to Human Rights (HR) No Relevance to Health Impacts (H) No Relevance to Social Economic Impacts (SE) Yes Who will be affected by this policy? N/A Who will be/has been involved in the consultation process? N/A
Page 68
Please outline any particular need/barriers which equality groups may have in relation to this policy list evidence you are using to support this and whether there is any negative impact on particular groups. Specific group to consider Needs Evidence Impact Age Disability Gender Reassign Marriage & Civil Partnership Pregnancy & Maternity Race Religion and Belief Sex Sexual Orientation Human Rights Health Social & Economic Impact The Council has a duty to obtain best value. The Council must keep in mind the Fairer Scotland Duty when making strategic financial decisions. Where relevant contracts take into account Community Benefit Clauses, however the contract size and type does not indicate a strategic decision that has the ability to reduce socioeconomic inequalities. Neutral Cross Cutting Policy has a negative impact on an equality group, but is still to be implemented, please provide justification for this. N/A Will the impact of the policy be monitored and reported on an ongoing basis? N/A
Page 69
Q7 What is you recommendation for this policy? Introduce Please provide a meaningful summary of how you have reached the recommendation EIA 988, the proposal is relevant to the Fairer Scotland Duty because of its size. However, because of its nature there is no opportunity to reduce Socio economic inequalities in the West Dunbartonshire area, so the overall impact is likely to be neutral.
Page 70
Assessment No 1144 Owner Michelle Lynn Resource Regeneration, Environment and Growth Service Budget SD and P FirstName Surname Job Title Head Officer Laurence Slavin Chief Officer Resources Members Michelle Lynn Assets Manager (Please note: the word 'policy' is used as shorthand for strategy, policy, function or financial decision) Policy Title RES09 Review of charges for use of offices to external parties The aim, objective, purpose and intended outcome of policy It is proposed to review current capacity and usage across the Council operational estate to consider options for generating income – for example leasing floor space to interested partners or charging for use of office accommodation to partner organisations based within our operational estate. Service/Partners/Stakeholders/service users involved in the development and/or implementation of policy. No staff members will be displaced as a result of this proposal. Should opportunities arise for additional income an Equality Impact Assessment will be produced for that purpose. Does the proposals involve the procurement of any goods or services? No If yes, please confirm that you have contacted our procurement services to discuss your requirements. No SCREENING You must indicate if there is any relevance to the four areas Duty to eliminate discrimination (E), advance equal opportunities (A) or foster good relations (F) No Relevance to Human Rights (HR) No
Page 71
Relevance to Health Impacts (H) No Relevance to Social Economic Impacts (SE) No Who will be affected by this policy? WDC staff members Who will be/has been involved in the consultation process? Chief Officers and Service Managers Please outline any particular need/barriers which equality groups may have in relation to this policy list evidence you are using to support this and whether there is any negative impact on particular groups. Specific group to consider Needs Evidence Impact Age N/A N/A N/A Disability N/A N/A N/A Gender Reassign N/A N/A N/A Marriage & Civil Partnership N/A N/A N/A Pregnancy & Maternity N/A N/A N/A Race N/A N/A N/A Religion and Belief N/A N/A N/A Sex N/A N/A N/A Sexual Orientation N/A N/A N/A Human Rights N/A N/A N/A Health N/A N/A N/A Social & Economic Impact N/A N/A N/A Cross Cutting N/A N/A N/A
Page 72
Policy has a negative impact on an equality group, but is still to be implemented, please provide justification for this. Proposal does not have a negative impact with any group. Will the impact of the policy be monitored and reported on an ongoing basis? Yes, continued monitoring of staff accommodation is monitored via SAMG and service managers meetings. Q7 What is you recommendation for this policy? Introduce Please provide a meaningful summary of how you have reached the recommendation Screening 1144 concludes that the proposal is not relevant and therefore does not require an impact assessment, as it builds on successful existing arrangements and does not introduce significant changes. Should opportunities arise for additional income an Equality Impact Assessment will be produced for that purpose.
Page 73
Assessment No 1142 Owner Michelle Lynn Resource Transformation Service Budget Resource FirstName Surname Job Title Head Officer Laurence Slavin Chief Officer Resources Members Michelle Lynn Asset Manager Laurence Slavin, Chief Officer (Please note: the word 'policy' is used as shorthand for strategy, policy, function or financial decision) Policy Title RES13 Historical lease review The aim, objective, purpose and intended outcome of policy A review of all property related assets has been undertaken with a number of areas which generates a new capital receipt, additional income and associated revenue saving. These have not been assumed in any other savings exercise and are deliverable within the financial years listed. Review of historical leases by previous district/regional authorities (31 properties) was reviewed as part of savings exercise 23/24 which were offered at below market rent values or no rent. Service/Partners/Stakeholders/service users involved in the development and/or implementation of policy. No staff members will be displaced as a result of this proposal. Should opportunities arise for additional income an EIA will be produced for those proposals. Does the proposals involve the procurement of any goods or services? No If yes, please confirm that you have contacted our procurement services to discuss your requirements. No SCREENING
Page 74
You must indicate if there is any relevance to the four areas Duty to eliminate discrimination (E), advance equal opportunities (A) or foster good relations (F) Yes Relevance to Human Rights (HR) No Relevance to Health Impacts (H) No Relevance to Social Economic Impacts (SE) Yes Who will be affected by this policy? Tenants of commercial properties Who will be/has been involved in the consultation process?
Page 75
Please outline any particular need/barriers which equality groups may have in relation to this policy list evidence you are using to support this and whether there is any negative impact on particular groups. Specific group to consider Needs Evidence Impact Age Disability Gender Reassign Marriage & Civil Partnership Pregnancy & Maternity Race Religion and Belief Sex Sexual Orientation Human Rights Health Social & Economic Impact We need to take into account the Fairer Scotland Duty when considering strategic financial decisions and follow the statutory guidance relating to this. We evaluate impacts based on evidence. We will examine potential impacts of any proposed changes to ensure consideration on potential impacts. Cross Cutting We need to take into account any equality and other linked implications of proposals. We evaluate impacts based on evidence a take account of how factors interact. We will examine potential impacts of any proposed changes to ensure consideration on potential impacts and how these interact.
Page 76
Policy has a negative impact on an equality group, but is still to be implemented, please provide justification for this. Will the impact of the policy be monitored and reported on an ongoing basis? Q7 What is you recommendation for this policy? Introduce Please provide a meaningful summary of how you have reached the recommendation EIA 1142: Increasing charges may have equality and socio-economic impacts. We are therefore committed to impact assessing any and all future proposals that would increase these. Assessment No 1143 Owner Michelle Lynn Resource Transformation Service Budget Resource FirstName Surname Job Title Head Officer Laurence Slavin Chief Officer Resources Members Michelle Lynn Asset Manager (Please note: the word 'policy' is used as shorthand for strategy policy function or financial decision) Policy Title RES15 Reduce size of Building Services The aim, objective, purpose and intended outcome of policy The Council’s Building Services team currently has an equivalent of 4.5 FTE vacancies (combination of whole posts and employees who wish to reduce their hours through flexible retirement). Service/Partners/Stakeholders/service users involved in the development and/or implementation of policy. WDC Staff Members/Chief Officers Does the proposals involve the procurement of any goods or services? No
Page 77
If yes please confirm that you have contacted our procurement services to discuss your requirements. No SCREENING You must indicate if there is any relevance to the four areas Duty to eliminate discrimination (E), advance equal opportunities (A) or foster good relations (F) No Relevance to Human Rights (HR) No Relevance to Health Impacts (H) No Relevance to Social Economic Impacts (SE) No Who will be affected by this policy? All Council services, Elected Members and partner organisations including the Scottish Government. Who will be/has been involved in the consultation process? Michelle Lynn, Assets Manager- conducted this high level efficiency option ; Laurence Slavin, Chief Officer - Resources - interrogated this high level efficiency option; Performance and Monitoring Review Group, West Dunbartonshire Council - where informed of this high level efficiency option; Martin Rooney, Leader of the Council - was informed of this high level efficiency option; and David McBride, Deputy Leader of the Council - was informed of this high level efficiency option. If this high level efficiency option is to be taken forward to the next stage; staff, Trade Unions and Elected Members will be consulted. Please outline any particular need/barriers which equality groups may have in relation to this policy list evidence you are using to support this and whether there is any negative impact on particular groups. Policy has a negative impact on an equality group, but is still to be implemented, please provide justification for this. No employees will be displaced as a result of this savings proposal. Will the impact of the policy be monitored and reported on an ongoing basis? Yes Q7 What is you recommendation for this policy? Introduce Please provide a meaningful summary of how you have reached the recommendation Screening 1143 concludes that the proposal is not relevant and therefore does not
Page 78
require an impact assessment. These posts can be removed from the establishment without material impact on service delivery or other staff's workload. Assessment No 1137 Owner Gail MacFarlane Resource Regeneration, Environment and Growth Service Budget R and N FirstName Surname Job Title Head Officer Gail MacFarlane Chief Officer Members Gail Macfarlane, Chief Officer Ricardo Rea, Performance and Strategy Officer Ian Bain, Greenspace Manager (Please note: the word 'policy' is used as shorthand for strategy policy function or financial decision) Policy Title RN01 Stopping Saturday burials The aim, objective, purpose and intended outcome of policy Efficiency Service/Partners/Stakeholders/service users involved in the development and/or implementation of policy. Greenspace Manager Burial Services Does the proposals involve the procurement of any goods or services? No If yes please confirm that you have contacted our procurement services to discuss your requirements. No SCREENING You must indicate if there is any relevance to the four areas Duty to eliminate discrimination (E), advance equal opportunities (A) or foster good relations (F) Yes Relevance to Human Rights (HR) Yes
Page 79
Relevance to Health Impacts (H) No Relevance to Social Economic Impacts (SE) No Who will be affected by this policy? Potentially, members of the Muslim faith. Who will be/has been involved in the consultation process? Burial Service, Greenspace Manager Please outline any particular need/barriers which equality groups may have in relation to this policy list evidence you are using to support this and whether there is any negative impact on particular groups. Specific group to consider Needs Evidence Impact Age Disability Gender Reassign Marriage & Civil Partnership Pregnancy & Maternity Race Religion and Belief Muslim practice is that the deceased are buried as quickly as possible after death, cremation is not usually permitted. Removing the option of a Saturday burial, may it more difficult for Muslims to bury deceased persons as quickly as possible if they wanted to do this in West Dunbartonshire. Potentially negative for members of the Muslim community. Neutral for other religions and beliefs. Sex Sexual Orientation Human Rights Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights has been engaged in relation to issues around burials. A review of relevant case law does not suggest that Article 8 would be infringed by removing Saturday burials, and that the Neutral
Page 80
change is proportionate given the legitimate aims of the Council in this case Guide on Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life, home and correspondence Health Social & Economic Impact Cross Cutting Policy has a negative impact on an equality group but is still to be implemented, please provide justification for this. The Council have a dedicated area in a cemetery for those of the Muslim faith. There have been very few requests for burials at the weekend and none since the suspension of the service. Officers will continue to support families of the bereaved as much as they are able to provide a suitable option. Will the impact of the policy be monitored and reported on an ongoing basis? The burial service is monitored and the number of funerals are reported Q7 What is you recommendation for this policy? Introduce Please provide a meaningful summary of how you have reached the recommendation Screening 1137: Muslim practice is that the deceased are buried as quickly as possible after death, cremation is not permitted. Removing the option of a Saturday burial, may make it more difficult for Muslims to bury deceased persons as quickly as possible if they wanted to do this in West Dunbartonshire. In mitigation, the service will continue to support users of the service to deliver acceptable solutions.
Page 81
Assessment No 1140 Owner Gail MacFarlane Resource Regeneration, Environment and Growth Service Budget R and N FirstName Surname Job Title Head Officer Gail MacFarlane Chief Officer Members Ricardo Rea (Please note: the word 'policy' is used as shorthand for strategy, policy, function or financial decision) Policy Title RN07 Capitalise Play Park Fitter The aim, objective, purpose and intended outcome of policy Capital funding a play park fitter for a period of 5 years to deliver the playpark upgrade programme. This will reduce revenue implications of circa £40k /annum (includes on costs) This can commence 24/25. Service/Partners/Stakeholders/service users involved in the development and/or implementation of policy. Greenspace Does the proposals involve the procurement of any goods or services? No If yes, please confirm that you have contacted our procurement services to discuss your requirements. No SCREENING You must indicate if there is any relevance to the four areas
Page 82
Duty to eliminate discrimination (E), advance equal opportunities (A) or foster good relations (F) No Relevance to Human Rights (HR) No Relevance to Health Impacts (H) No Relevance to Social Economic Impacts (SE) No Who will be affected by this policy? N/A Who will be/has been involved in the consultation process? Greenspace Team
Page 83
Please outline any particular need/barriers which equality groups may have in relation to this policy list evidence you are using to support this and whether there is any negative impact on particular groups. Policy has a negative impact on an equality group, but is still to be implemented, please provide justification for this. N/A Will the impact of the policy be monitored and reported on an ongoing basis? N/A Q7 What is you recommendation for this policy? Introduce Please provide a meaningful summary of how you have reached the recommendation Screening 1140: Other than reducing revenue spend this proposal no impact on service delivery of staffing. It is not relevant to any of the areas we assess and does not need to be impact assessed.
Page 84
Assessment No 1129 Owner Gail McFarlane Resource Regeneration, Environment and Growth Service Budget R and N FirstName Surname Job Title Head Officer Gail Macfarlane Chief Officer - Roads & Neighbourhood Members Working4U and Fleet Manager, Fleet Coordinator, Roads & Transport Manager, Road Network Coordinator (Please note: the word 'policy' is used as shorthand for strategy, policy, function or financial decision) Policy Title RN09 Further replacement of hire vehicles The aim, objective, purpose and intended outcome of policy The purpose of the saving option is to reduce the reliance on the use of hire gritters and other roads vehicles. Resilience will be improved by removing need to facilitate the use of hire vehicles and provides opportunity to maximise in-house delivery of projects. The service will be able to programme works throughout the year to progress projects. This includes resurfacing of carriageway, footways, car parks, delivery of structural repairs and delivery of unadopted network improvements. Service/Partners/Stakeholders/service users involved in the development and/or implementation of policy. Fleet Service, roads service, procurement, service users Does the proposals involve the procurement of any goods or services? Yes If yes, please confirm that you have contacted our procurement services to discuss your requirements. Yes SCREENING You must indicate if there is any relevance to the four areas Duty to eliminate discrimination (E), advance equal opportunities (A) or foster good relations (F) No Relevance to Human Rights (HR) No Relevance to Health Impacts (H) No
Page 85
Relevance to Social Economic Impacts (SE) No Who will be affected by this policy? Service users within the council Who will be/has been involved in the consultation process? Fleet Service, roads service, procurement team, service users
Page 86
Please outline any particular need/barriers which equality groups may have in relation to this policy list evidence you are using to support this and whether there is any negative impact on particular groups. Specific group to consider Needs Evidence Impact Age Disability Gender Reassign Marriage & Civil Partnership Pregnancy & Maternity Race Religion and Belief Sex Sexual Orientation Human Rights Health Social & Economic Impact Cross Cutting Policy has a negative impact on an equality group, but is still to be implemented, please provide justification for this. N/A Will the impact of the policy be monitored and reported on an ongoing basis? Fleet use will be monitored to maximise use of vehicles Q7 What is you recommendation for this policy? Introduce Please provide a meaningful summary of how you have reached the
Page 87
recommendation Screening 838: The proposal to accelerate has been screened and is not relevant to any of the impact areas, therefore no impact assessment is required. Eventual procurement of vehicles will be impact assessed having regard to the Fair Scotland Duty in line with the Councils usual approach as this is a major procurement.
Page 88
Assessment No 1101 Owner George Hawthorn Resource Regeneration, Environment and Growth Service Budget R and R FirstName Surname Job Title Head Officer George Hawthorn Manager of Democratic and Registration Services Members Alan Douglas, Chief Officer - Regulatory and Regeneration (Please note: the word 'policy' is used as shorthand for strategy, policy, function or financial decision) Policy Title RR09 Registrars The aim, objective, purpose and intended outcome of policy To reduce the budget deficit by not filling the current 0.5FTE vacancy within the Dumbarton Registration office. Service/Partners/Stakeholders/service users involved in the development and/or implementation of policy. The Senior Registrar has been consulted on this proposal. Does the proposals involve the procurement of any goods or services? No If yes, please confirm that you have contacted our procurement services to discuss your requirements. No SCREENING You must indicate if there is any relevance to the four areas Duty to eliminate discrimination (E), advance equal opportunities (A) or foster good relations (F) No Relevance to Human Rights (HR) No Relevance to Health Impacts (H) No Relevance to Social Economic Impacts (SE) No Who will be affected by this policy? N/A Who will be/has been involved in the consultation process?
Page 89
N/A Please outline any particular need/barriers which equality groups may have in relation to this policy list evidence you are using to support this and whether there is any negative impact on particular groups. Policy has a negative impact on an equality group, but is still to be implemented, please provide justification for this. N/A Will the impact of the policy be monitored and reported on an ongoing basis? N/A Q7 What is you recommendation for this policy? Introduce Please provide a meaningful summary of how you have reached the recommendation Screening 1101: The post has been vacant for nine months without any impact on the service or public.