Top earning Wolverhampton council officers to be axed

Ten top earning officers at Wolverhampton City Council are to be made redundant and services radically overhauled under more cost-cutting measures revealed today.

As part of plans to cut £26 million from the council's budget next year, nine chief officers out of 19 will go along with a director's post. The role of overseeing regeneration will be split between the three remaining directors with the titles of enterprise, delivery and community. The move, led by chief executive Simon Warren,will save at least £1m a year.

Mr Warren took over as chief executive earlier this year on a salary of £133,380.

Out of 12,465 people on the payroll, 154 staff members are on £50,000-a-year.

Currently there are four directors in the corporate management team - Roy Lockwood oversees children and young people on £113,817 a year, Sarah Norman is in charge of social services on £111,816 and Richard Hill is in charge of customer and shared services Richard Hill and is on £113,817.

Steve Boyes is in charge of regeneration for the council and was paid £121,073 last year, which included filling in as interim chief executive.

It has not been revealed which officer's job will be deleted.

Mr Warren said: "The impact of change has to be minimised in order to protect the citizens of Wolverhampton from a disproportionate impact in the reductions facing public sector spend."

The move will go before cabinet on Monday ahead of a 30-day consultation process.

Tory council leader Councillor Neville Patten said: "When the chief executive arrived I told him that this council was top heavy with lots of people doing each other's jobs.

"It is a shame that some people will have to go because of the problems that can cause for them and their families, but this council is bigger than any one person and it must be able to deliver to the benefit of everyone in Wolverhampton."

Labour's personnel spokesman Councillor Milkinder Jaspal added: "If it can be shown that the service will still be managed well, then there's no reason not to cut some of these posts."

By Local Government Editor Daniel Wainwright