Warrington cleaning company sets out plan to create 700 jobs

Warrington Guardian: From left are Simon Whittle and Steve Fives, founders of the business From left are Simon Whittle and Steve Fives, founders of the business

A TOWN centre company is aiming to create 700 jobs and boost its turnover by £30million.

The Westgrove Group, a commercial cleaning and security specialist, has revealed its ambitious plans this week.

The award-winning company is spearheaded by entrepreneurs Steve Fives and Simon Whittle who set-up the firm 15 years ago.

Based at Centre Park in Warrington, it works with shopping centres, sports stadiums and corporate enterprises and currently has a turnover of £17m.

Mr Fives said: “The immediate platform to take us to the next level is £20m plus.

“We are planning to expand our workforce by around 300 positions this year as we secure an additional 50 plus contracts.

“We anticipate growth in the region of 50 per cent over the next two years with an employee head count of around 1,700.

“This will be through sustained natural growth by expanding our business model into key vertical markets and also identifying potential acquisition targets.

“It’s time to take the next step and catapult Westgrove into a new stratosphere of dual service cleaning and security providers.”

He added: “We are already one of the leading independent operators in the UK and we’re looking to be a viable alternative to the ‘big boys’; the PLCs that dominate our industry.

“We’ve never needed a sales team before as the business was built on recommendations.

“But it’s time to take the next step. We’re independent, wholly owned by our founding directors and primed for growth.

“In the next few years we’re determined to become a £30m business and maybe more.”

Among their innovative business plan is a ‘Colleagues of Tomorrow’ scheme - asking potential employees to meet existing bosses to see if they can work well in the company.

Steve added: “The key driver was and always will be looking after our colleagues and integrating them into our business. We felt that if we could achieve this, the end product would be great staff continuity - the bedrock of our success - with loyalty to our brand.

“Westgrove has less than a 10 per cent staff turnover compared to an industry norm of 75 per cent so our business model is proving to be hugely beneficial.”

Comments (8)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

1:19pm Tue 4 Feb 14

WAFiver says...

And these will be full time, living wage jobs?
And these will be full time, living wage jobs? WAFiver

2:14pm Tue 4 Feb 14

GRUMPY PARENT says...

WAFiver wrote:
And these will be full time, living wage jobs?
Don't be negative, I am sure there are many people who would like any hours work they can get at least this company is trying. Well done chaps.
Still Grumpy
[quote][p][bold]WAFiver[/bold] wrote: And these will be full time, living wage jobs?[/p][/quote]Don't be negative, I am sure there are many people who would like any hours work they can get at least this company is trying. Well done chaps. Still Grumpy GRUMPY PARENT

2:27pm Tue 4 Feb 14

Nick Tessla says...

WAFiver wrote:
And these will be full time, living wage jobs?
On their own figures, they would have to pay put more in wages than their turnover to do so.

Another employer heavily reliant on subsidies via the benefits their workers receive.
[quote][p][bold]WAFiver[/bold] wrote: And these will be full time, living wage jobs?[/p][/quote]On their own figures, they would have to pay put more in wages than their turnover to do so. Another employer heavily reliant on subsidies via the benefits their workers receive. Nick Tessla

3:46pm Tue 4 Feb 14

GRUMPY PARENT says...

Nick Tessla wrote:
WAFiver wrote:
And these will be full time, living wage jobs?
On their own figures, they would have to pay put more in wages than their turnover to do so.

Another employer heavily reliant on subsidies via the benefits their workers receive.
That's only if the primary parent is working part time ie 16hrs or less. Many parents work these hours as it suits them as they don't have to pay childcare, or the government don't have to pay it, which in the long run saves money. Isn't it better to at least be contributing to HMRC rather than just sit at home sponging off said HMRC. Many households have one primary worker on full time wages and one working part time. I suppose Nick that you do not claim any benefit's to top up your wages like working tax credit's and the like, no your just a martyr aren't you, or a hypocrite which is my guess!
Still Grumpy
[quote][p][bold]Nick Tessla[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]WAFiver[/bold] wrote: And these will be full time, living wage jobs?[/p][/quote]On their own figures, they would have to pay put more in wages than their turnover to do so. Another employer heavily reliant on subsidies via the benefits their workers receive.[/p][/quote]That's only if the primary parent is working part time ie 16hrs or less. Many parents work these hours as it suits them as they don't have to pay childcare, or the government don't have to pay it, which in the long run saves money. Isn't it better to at least be contributing to HMRC rather than just sit at home sponging off said HMRC. Many households have one primary worker on full time wages and one working part time. I suppose Nick that you do not claim any benefit's to top up your wages like working tax credit's and the like, no your just a martyr aren't you, or a hypocrite which is my guess! Still Grumpy GRUMPY PARENT

3:51pm Tue 4 Feb 14

Nick Tessla says...

GRUMPY PARENT wrote:
Nick Tessla wrote:
WAFiver wrote:
And these will be full time, living wage jobs?
On their own figures, they would have to pay put more in wages than their turnover to do so.

Another employer heavily reliant on subsidies via the benefits their workers receive.
That's only if the primary parent is working part time ie 16hrs or less. Many parents work these hours as it suits them as they don't have to pay childcare, or the government don't have to pay it, which in the long run saves money. Isn't it better to at least be contributing to HMRC rather than just sit at home sponging off said HMRC. Many households have one primary worker on full time wages and one working part time. I suppose Nick that you do not claim any benefit's to top up your wages like working tax credit's and the like, no your just a martyr aren't you, or a hypocrite which is my guess!
Still Grumpy
My personal circumstances are irrelevant, and i would not dignify your questioning with a response. Your resorting to personal abuse is unnecessary but typical.
[quote][p][bold]GRUMPY PARENT[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Nick Tessla[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]WAFiver[/bold] wrote: And these will be full time, living wage jobs?[/p][/quote]On their own figures, they would have to pay put more in wages than their turnover to do so. Another employer heavily reliant on subsidies via the benefits their workers receive.[/p][/quote]That's only if the primary parent is working part time ie 16hrs or less. Many parents work these hours as it suits them as they don't have to pay childcare, or the government don't have to pay it, which in the long run saves money. Isn't it better to at least be contributing to HMRC rather than just sit at home sponging off said HMRC. Many households have one primary worker on full time wages and one working part time. I suppose Nick that you do not claim any benefit's to top up your wages like working tax credit's and the like, no your just a martyr aren't you, or a hypocrite which is my guess! Still Grumpy[/p][/quote]My personal circumstances are irrelevant, and i would not dignify your questioning with a response. Your resorting to personal abuse is unnecessary but typical. Nick Tessla

4:03pm Tue 4 Feb 14

Nick Tessla says...

GRUMPY PARENT wrote:
Nick Tessla wrote:
WAFiver wrote:
And these will be full time, living wage jobs?
On their own figures, they would have to pay put more in wages than their turnover to do so.

Another employer heavily reliant on subsidies via the benefits their workers receive.
That's only if the primary parent is working part time ie 16hrs or less. Many parents work these hours as it suits them as they don't have to pay childcare, or the government don't have to pay it, which in the long run saves money. Isn't it better to at least be contributing to HMRC rather than just sit at home sponging off said HMRC. Many households have one primary worker on full time wages and one working part time. I suppose Nick that you do not claim any benefit's to top up your wages like working tax credit's and the like, no your just a martyr aren't you, or a hypocrite which is my guess!
Still Grumpy
Thee are very many people who are working who are working far more than 16 hours a week, including full-time (parents, childless couples and single people) who are in receipt of benefits- which subsidises their employers' bottom lines.
[quote][p][bold]GRUMPY PARENT[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Nick Tessla[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]WAFiver[/bold] wrote: And these will be full time, living wage jobs?[/p][/quote]On their own figures, they would have to pay put more in wages than their turnover to do so. Another employer heavily reliant on subsidies via the benefits their workers receive.[/p][/quote]That's only if the primary parent is working part time ie 16hrs or less. Many parents work these hours as it suits them as they don't have to pay childcare, or the government don't have to pay it, which in the long run saves money. Isn't it better to at least be contributing to HMRC rather than just sit at home sponging off said HMRC. Many households have one primary worker on full time wages and one working part time. I suppose Nick that you do not claim any benefit's to top up your wages like working tax credit's and the like, no your just a martyr aren't you, or a hypocrite which is my guess! Still Grumpy[/p][/quote]Thee are very many people who are working who are working far more than 16 hours a week, including full-time (parents, childless couples and single people) who are in receipt of benefits- which subsidises their employers' bottom lines. Nick Tessla

5:22pm Tue 4 Feb 14

GRUMPY PARENT says...

Nick Tessla wrote:
GRUMPY PARENT wrote:
Nick Tessla wrote:
WAFiver wrote:
And these will be full time, living wage jobs?
On their own figures, they would have to pay put more in wages than their turnover to do so.

Another employer heavily reliant on subsidies via the benefits their workers receive.
That's only if the primary parent is working part time ie 16hrs or less. Many parents work these hours as it suits them as they don't have to pay childcare, or the government don't have to pay it, which in the long run saves money. Isn't it better to at least be contributing to HMRC rather than just sit at home sponging off said HMRC. Many households have one primary worker on full time wages and one working part time. I suppose Nick that you do not claim any benefit's to top up your wages like working tax credit's and the like, no your just a martyr aren't you, or a hypocrite which is my guess!
Still Grumpy
Thee are very many people who are working who are working far more than 16 hours a week, including full-time (parents, childless couples and single people) who are in receipt of benefits- which subsidises their employers' bottom lines.
No Nick I am just making a point that a secondary parent can financially and mentally benefit from working part time hours. I am not interested in your personal circumstances whatsoever. Employers may benefit from part time workers but employees do so also if that is what the government want then that is what they will get. You are criticising people benefiting from working tax credits etc when you probably benefit from the same. Don't be a hypocrite slating people from attempting to work when if they have young children in this country they really don't need too. If this company can provide part time hours then I applaud them rather than criticise them. Please don't try to educate me on the finance industry or I will really embarrass you Nick this is my field!
Still Grumpy
[quote][p][bold]Nick Tessla[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]GRUMPY PARENT[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Nick Tessla[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]WAFiver[/bold] wrote: And these will be full time, living wage jobs?[/p][/quote]On their own figures, they would have to pay put more in wages than their turnover to do so. Another employer heavily reliant on subsidies via the benefits their workers receive.[/p][/quote]That's only if the primary parent is working part time ie 16hrs or less. Many parents work these hours as it suits them as they don't have to pay childcare, or the government don't have to pay it, which in the long run saves money. Isn't it better to at least be contributing to HMRC rather than just sit at home sponging off said HMRC. Many households have one primary worker on full time wages and one working part time. I suppose Nick that you do not claim any benefit's to top up your wages like working tax credit's and the like, no your just a martyr aren't you, or a hypocrite which is my guess! Still Grumpy[/p][/quote]Thee are very many people who are working who are working far more than 16 hours a week, including full-time (parents, childless couples and single people) who are in receipt of benefits- which subsidises their employers' bottom lines.[/p][/quote]No Nick I am just making a point that a secondary parent can financially and mentally benefit from working part time hours. I am not interested in your personal circumstances whatsoever. Employers may benefit from part time workers but employees do so also if that is what the government want then that is what they will get. You are criticising people benefiting from working tax credits etc when you probably benefit from the same. Don't be a hypocrite slating people from attempting to work when if they have young children in this country they really don't need too. If this company can provide part time hours then I applaud them rather than criticise them. Please don't try to educate me on the finance industry or I will really embarrass you Nick this is my field! Still Grumpy GRUMPY PARENT

5:48pm Tue 4 Feb 14

Nick Tessla says...

GRUMPY PARENT wrote:
Nick Tessla wrote:
GRUMPY PARENT wrote:
Nick Tessla wrote:
WAFiver wrote:
And these will be full time, living wage jobs?
On their own figures, they would have to pay put more in wages than their turnover to do so.

Another employer heavily reliant on subsidies via the benefits their workers receive.
That's only if the primary parent is working part time ie 16hrs or less. Many parents work these hours as it suits them as they don't have to pay childcare, or the government don't have to pay it, which in the long run saves money. Isn't it better to at least be contributing to HMRC rather than just sit at home sponging off said HMRC. Many households have one primary worker on full time wages and one working part time. I suppose Nick that you do not claim any benefit's to top up your wages like working tax credit's and the like, no your just a martyr aren't you, or a hypocrite which is my guess!
Still Grumpy
Thee are very many people who are working who are working far more than 16 hours a week, including full-time (parents, childless couples and single people) who are in receipt of benefits- which subsidises their employers' bottom lines.
No Nick I am just making a point that a secondary parent can financially and mentally benefit from working part time hours. I am not interested in your personal circumstances whatsoever. Employers may benefit from part time workers but employees do so also if that is what the government want then that is what they will get. You are criticising people benefiting from working tax credits etc when you probably benefit from the same. Don't be a hypocrite slating people from attempting to work when if they have young children in this country they really don't need too. If this company can provide part time hours then I applaud them rather than criticise them. Please don't try to educate me on the finance industry or I will really embarrass you Nick this is my field!
Still Grumpy
What a bizarre posting

1) You raised my personal circumstances

2) I did not criticise people who are in receipt of Working Tax Credits - or any of the other benefits that people in work receive, just the employers who subsidise their wage bill via it.

3) I did not slate people who choose to work

4) I did not mention the finance industry.
[quote][p][bold]GRUMPY PARENT[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Nick Tessla[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]GRUMPY PARENT[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Nick Tessla[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]WAFiver[/bold] wrote: And these will be full time, living wage jobs?[/p][/quote]On their own figures, they would have to pay put more in wages than their turnover to do so. Another employer heavily reliant on subsidies via the benefits their workers receive.[/p][/quote]That's only if the primary parent is working part time ie 16hrs or less. Many parents work these hours as it suits them as they don't have to pay childcare, or the government don't have to pay it, which in the long run saves money. Isn't it better to at least be contributing to HMRC rather than just sit at home sponging off said HMRC. Many households have one primary worker on full time wages and one working part time. I suppose Nick that you do not claim any benefit's to top up your wages like working tax credit's and the like, no your just a martyr aren't you, or a hypocrite which is my guess! Still Grumpy[/p][/quote]Thee are very many people who are working who are working far more than 16 hours a week, including full-time (parents, childless couples and single people) who are in receipt of benefits- which subsidises their employers' bottom lines.[/p][/quote]No Nick I am just making a point that a secondary parent can financially and mentally benefit from working part time hours. I am not interested in your personal circumstances whatsoever. Employers may benefit from part time workers but employees do so also if that is what the government want then that is what they will get. You are criticising people benefiting from working tax credits etc when you probably benefit from the same. Don't be a hypocrite slating people from attempting to work when if they have young children in this country they really don't need too. If this company can provide part time hours then I applaud them rather than criticise them. Please don't try to educate me on the finance industry or I will really embarrass you Nick this is my field! Still Grumpy[/p][/quote]What a bizarre posting 1) You raised my personal circumstances 2) I did not criticise people who are in receipt of Working Tax Credits - or any of the other benefits that people in work receive, just the employers who subsidise their wage bill via it. 3) I did not slate people who choose to work 4) I did not mention the finance industry. Nick Tessla

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree