1

abc

James Appleton

Executive Head of Planning Regeneration and Wellbeing

2

HIGH LEVEL BUSINESS CASE

4TH NOVEMBER 2008 JOINT OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY COMMITTEE

18TH NOVEMBER 2008

JOINT STRATEGIC COMMITTEE

ADUR AND WORTHING COUNCILS

__________________________________________________________________

BUILDING CONTROL

PLANNING, REGENERATION AND WELLBEING

___________________________________________________________________

James Appleton Executive Head of Planning Regeneration and Wellbeing

3

ADUR DISTRICT AND WORTHING BOROUGH COUNCILS BUSINESS CASE FOR 2008/2009

BUILDING CONTROL

INDEX Executive Summary 1. Introduction and background to the Proposed Joint Service 2. Contribution to both Councils’ shared strategic objectives 3. Service Review Approach to Business Transformation – The

Approach over the next 3 years. 4. Risk Management 5. Service Objectives and Customer Expectations 6. Role of the Strategic Director 7. Performance Matters 8. Financial Matters 9. Accommodation and location 10. Sustainability 11. The Equality Standard 12. Training and Development 13. Human Resources 14. Barriers for progressing shared services 15. Conclusion

4

Building Control Business Case

Executive Summary 1. Introduction

Building Control is an outward looking service which has a limited range of customers and has little Member involvement. It is a specialist service that is in direct competition with the private sector and this has a major bearing on how the service functions. Both Councils provide a good quality service but Adur has suffered in the past because of the small size of the Group and because of the difficulties of recruiting staff it has had to rely on the use of consultants.

The high level business case has been prepared in consultation with building control staff from Worthing and Adur Council’s. The business case has developed the work previously undertaken in 2005 when a project group was set up to look at providing a joint building control service. As in 2005 the report concludes that there is a sound business case for joining the service. There are considerable benefits with creating a larger Building Control Group. In particular, a greater critical mass would allow the new service to be more proactive in terms of marketing and maximising opportunities for increased fee income.

2. Current Services

The two services currently have 2 Managers, 4 Principal/Senior Building Control Officers, 5.6 Building Control Officers, 1 full time Fire Safety Officer and the equivalent of 1.84 administrative support Officers. The total operating costs for both Councils exceeds £600,000 with the bulk of this being direct salaries. The combined fee income for last year was £468,578.

An important consideration in respect of this service is that both Council’s are required to prepare and publish their ‘Trading Accounts’ over a rolling three year accounting period and that any surpluses should be re-invested in the service. Put simply, the service has to be run like a business but, unlike any normal commercial enterprise, it cannot cover its full operating costs nor make a profit over the accounting period. Additional fee income can be achieved through effective marketing of the service and this can help to reduce the net operating costs. However, this cannot offset the non-fee earning aspects of the service. Nevertheless, there is scope to increase the percentage of work that is fee earning and aim for the provision of a cost free service as far as possible having due regard to existing and future accounting requirements. By providing a more cost effective service and rigorous marketing of the service, it is hoped that the service can avoid any deficit on the 3 year rolling trading account notwithstanding the current difficult economic climate. Worthing is currently trading with a surplus of approximately £42,000 whilst Adur has a deficit of some £27,000. The situation is improving at Adur and last year a surplus of over £20,000 was achieved, the first time in 3 years. The projection for the year would result in a rolling trade account figure for Worthing of £51,208 (surplus) and for Adur £17, 168 (deficit).

5

The recent government consultation on the Future of the Building Control Service seeks to address a number of weaknesses in the system, improve compliance and reduce current burdens. In relation to the current charging regime, the government has expressed concern that some authorities have generated significant surpluses and that this money may have been used for other local authority services instead of being re-invested back into the service. As a result, it is likely that changes to the service will aim to introduce more transparency so that it is clear that charges income, including surpluses, is used to cover the cost of providing Building Control only. This is likely to be achieved by amending the accounting requirements and issuing guidance which clarifies what details of Building Control income and expenditure has to be indicated in the accounts.

3. Proposals for a Joint Service.

The existing vacant Building Control Manager’s post at Adur is currently being covered by an Interim Manager and the existing Manager at Worthing has recently decided to retire at the end of October 2009. As a result a Joint Building Control Manager’s post has been advertised and an external appointment made. The new Joint Manager is due to start before the end of the year and the intention is to co-locate all Officers from Ist January 2009 to ensure that the new Manager can immediately start to get all staff working towards common service standards and ensure consistency in the interpretation of the Building Regulations. Work previously undertaken, reviewing other examples of partnership working across the Country, has identified the benefits of providing a single service in a single location at an early stage. It is recommended that the service is based in Worthing given that the bulk of the work would be here. However, as part of the service review scope for mobile/home working could reduce the need for accommodation and consultation with customers would help to determine the need for a satellite office in Shoreham in the longer term. The importance of resolving ICT issues and implementing EDRMS is essential to ensure the provision of a completely joint service in April 2010.

The creation of a joint Manager would automatically make a significant saving although it is recognised that additional resources would be necessary for the new joint team. This can be achieved by extending a part time Building Control Officer to full time and creating a new technician role. It is also proposed to create a new part time Structural Engineer post which would also make a significant saving on the amount of money both Council’s spend on consultants.

4. Savings

As stated previously, it is important to stress that any profits made over the accounting period should be invested in improving the service or reducing fees to remain competitive with the private sector. Any savings achieved within this service area, therefore, should be seen in this context. Proposed changes to the current accounting procedures are likely to make it harder for Local Authorities to use surpluses form the Trading Account for other Local Authority services. However, it will be important to assess what scope there is for defining fee and non-fee earning work to cover more of the operating costs of the service in the future. The objective for the new joint service would be to ensure that a healthy Trading Account can be maintained and this can be achieved by reducing operating costs and increasing fee income.

6

It has been identified that a possible joint structure could save up to £46,000 in the next financial year by reducing staff and consultancy costs. This would result in a 9% “saving”. This would certainly help to avoid any deficit in the future in the Trading Account and provide scope for considering a reduction in fees to remain competitive.

Summary of Potential “Savings” anticipated over the next 3 years

08/09 09/10 10/11 £9,000* £5,940 – WBC £3,060 – ADC

£46,500 £30,690 – WBC £15,810 – ADC

£51,500 ** £33,990 – WBC £17,510 – ADC

* Assuming Joint Manager starts on 1st December 2008. ** Scope for further savings on operating costs in relation to accommodation, ICT printing

and supplies/services.

It would be difficult to quantify at this stage the likely increase in fee income that could be achieved, particularly given the present economic climate. Nevertheless, it is hoped that the service review could identify further savings and other examples of partnership working have shown considerable reductions in operating costs and increases in fee income.

**********

7

1. Introduction and background to the Proposed Joint Service 1.1. For many years, both Worthing Borough and Adur District Councils have

provided a traditional Building Control Service. The service deals with a wide variety of issues, including safety and stability of buildings, dangerous structures, building and plan inspection and advice to customers. Within both Councils, the service is wholly delegated to Officers, given its technical nature. On limited occasions, a number of issues such as fee setting and standards of service are considered by Members. However, in the main the service is developed and provided, with little Member involvement.

1.2. In recent years, the Building Control Service provided by local authorities has

been subject to increased competition from the private sector. Initially, competition was introduced on certain types of housing development but this has extended into other commercial areas and a number of other aspects of building control work (increasingly included householder extensions). Both Building Control Services are effectively now operating in competition with the private sector. Certain types of work are more attractive to the private sector than others. That which is less attractive to the private sector does tend to get left to the public service to deal with and this is not always the most profitable work.

1.3. For a variety of reasons, it has become increasingly difficult to recruit and retain

qualified and experienced staff to the Building Control Service. Within both Worthing and Adur, retention and recruitment have become more difficult. In Worthing, scarcity allowances have been applied to Building Control Officers (15% increase in salary) and similar provisions have been made at Adur.

1.4. Both Councils provide a good quality Building Control Service and have Quality

Assurance systems accredited to ISO 9001:2000, separately registered with BM TRADA. Adur achieved its accreditation in 2004. The Building Control Service at Worthing has held this accreditation since November 1997, and this has helped it retain work that might otherwise have been taken by the private sector.

1.5. For a number of years, Building Control Services have also been required to

prepare and publish “Trading Accounts” to report their financial position over a rolling, three year accounting period. In very general terms, in accordance with national guidelines, services should not make “profits” over a three-year period and any profits made should be invested in improving the service. Fees can be adjusted upwards and downwards in order to ensure that a balanced account is achieved over this period. At present Worthing is trading effectively in this regard. Adur is currently trading at a significant deficit although significant improvements in service have been made and last year saw a surplus of over £20,000 for the first time in 3 years. On current trends, however, it appears that the credit crunch is likely to result in a further deficit of £10,000 for Adur and a £15,000 surplus for Worthing.

On this basis, a projected figure for 2008/09 for the 3 year rolling trading account is also shown in the following table.

8

Worthing 3 Year Trading Account 05/06 06/07 07/08 Cumulative

Surplus Projected (08/09)

Cumulative surplus

- £4,666 £9,425 - £47,633 - £42,874 -£51,208 Adur 3 Year Trading Account

05/06 06/07 07/08 Cumulative Deficit

Projected (08/09)

Cumulative deficit

£20,163 £30,923 - £23,755 £27,331 £17,168

1.6. The requirement for the service to operate a Trading Account is obviously similar to a business but, unlike other commercial enterprises, it cannot seek to make a surplus or profit and, in addition, it can only seek to recover the costs of operating its statutory functions and cannot recover its costs for non-statutory functions, like enforcement and dangerous structures. There is a requirement, therefore, to monitor its fee and non-fee earning work on a regular basis.

1.7. In 2005, as part of the ongoing joint working arrangements between Adur

District Council and Worthing Borough Council, it was agreed that Officers would investigate the possibility of providing a joint Building Control Service. This coincided with a vacancy in the Building Control Manager’s post at Adur. A Principal Building Control Officer from Worthing was seconded to Adur for six months (finishing in September 2006), to allow this Review to be undertaken. A report was prepared and recommended the provision of a Joint Building Control Service. A detailed action plan and timeline was prepared suggesting that a joint service could be set up with an implementation date of 1st April 2007. Although the report was presented to the simultaneous Cabinet meeting in January 2007 the report was deferred and subsequently the matter was overtaken by the proposal to create a single officer structure to serve both Councils.

1.8. In the meantime, Adur has appointed an interim Building Control Manager to

manage the service. More recently the Worthing Building Control Manager has decided to retire on the 31st October and a new Building Control Partnership Manager post has been recently advertised. Interviews for a new Joint Building Control Manager took place on the 10th September 2008 and an external appointment has been made. It is anticipated that the new joint Building Control Manager will start at the beginning of December.

1.9. The decision to proceed with this appointment was taken on the basis that it

would not be appropriate for both Councils to be without a permanent Building Control Manager from October 2008 and it was clear that a joint Manager would not prejudice the business case and service reviews for the Planning Regeneration and Wellbeing service block. In reaching this decision the relevant Executive Head demonstrated to the Partnership Management Board that to adequately manage the various functions of the new Service block it was considered necessary to appoint five directs reports, as indicated in the

9

structure chart below. Although the business case reviews would consider various options this was the favoured approach. Whilst there maybe be changes to some management posts reporting to the Executive Head following service reviews, it was considered appropriate to retain a separate Building Control Manager particularly as this would provide optimum flexibility in relation to other opportunities for wider partnership working.

1.10. It is important to note at this stage that the government is seeking a fundamental review of the Building Control Service and this is likely to impact on service delivery in the future. The recent government consultation on the “Future of the Building Control Service” seeks to address a number of apparent weaknesses in the present system and this follows consultation with users of the service and the Local Authority Building Control Service (LABC). The consultation paper sets out a series of likely changes to address current problems, increase competitiveness between Local Authorities (LAs) and Approved Inspectors (AIs) and improve compliance with the regulations. Outline of Current Working Arrangements

1.11. Despite increased competition from the private sector, the two Councils dealt

with over one thousand full plan applications in 2007/08. Over the last three years, the total number of full plans decided has fluctuated from 1004 in 2005/06, 997 in 2006/07 and 1077 in 2007/2008. During the same period, the number of building notices dealt with increased across both Councils as did the number of regularisation applications and the number of Approved Inspector initial notices.

1.12. In general terms, the Officer structure of the two Building Control groups are

similar, with both Councils employing a Building Control Manager, supplemented by a number of Building Control Officers and supporting technical/administrative staff. In both Councils, the service has traditionally been located within Planning Services, under the overall responsibility of an Assistant Director or Divisional Manager. As might be expected, the team at Worthing is larger, given that it deals with a higher number of applications each year.

1.13. In Worthing, the service is managed by the Building Control Manager, who is

supported by 2 Principal Building Control Officers and 4 Building Control Officers. There is also a full-time Fire Safety Officer and the equivalent of 1.04 administrative support posts. At Adur, again the service is managed by a

Executive Head

Of Service

Regeneration

Manager

Community Wellbeing Manager

Planning Policy

Manager

Planning Services Manager

Building Control Manager

10

Building Control Manager, who is supported by 2 Senior Building Control Officers, 1 full-time Building Control Officer and 1 part-time Building Control Officer who works 25 hours a week. Administrative support is the equivalent of 0.8 full-time posts. The two services together, therefore, have 2 Managers, 4 Principal/Senior Building Control Officers, 5.6 Building Control Officers, 1 full-time Fire safety Officer and the equivalent of 1.84 Administrative Support Officers. The existing structures are shown at Appendix BC1.

1.14. The service is not, however, fully staffed with a vacancy at Senior Building

Control Officer level at Adur and a vacant jobshare post at Building Control Officer level at Worthing. In addition, administrative support was reduced at Worthing following the introduction of the Contact Centre in 2007. A jobshare post (0.5 FTE) was transferred to the Contact Centre last year but this has caused difficulties for the service and Worthing has recently recruited a temporary part time Admin Assistant (6 month post). This is currently being paid partly out of vacancy provision and anticipated increase in fee income.

1.15. In Worthing, the service is located on the ground floor of Portland House in

Richmond Road. It occupies accommodation, which is shared with the Housing Services Section. At Adur, the service is located at first floor level within the Civic Centre and used to form part of the Planning and Community Services Division. Both Councils offer reception services for customers to visit Building Control Officers. Customer accessibility is an important part of the service within both Councils, although the majority of customer contact occurs on site.

2. Contribution to both Councils’ Shared Strategic Objectives 2.1. In terms of corporate objectives, Worthing Borough Council approved its

Corporate Plan for the period 2006 until 2011 on 21st March 2006. In agreeing this Plan, it set itself four strategic objectives:

Priority 1 - Improve Worthing as a town where people want to live,

work, visit and invest. Priority 2 - Make Worthing a safer, cleaner and healthier town today

and for tomorrow. Priority 3 - Protect and improve priority core services that people

want and value. Priority 4 - Provide Worthing with improved leisure, recreational and

cultural facilities and activities. 2.2. The above priorities are supplemented by a number of “measures of

achievement”. The Building Control service contributes in terms of meeting Priority 2 by ensuring a safer and healthier town. This is achieved through the application of the building regulations to ensure that buildings are safe places to live, work and play. In addition, the service provides essential advice in relation to fire regulations; controls demolition works and safeguards public safety by taking action where necessary in relation to dangerous buildings and structures.

11

2.3. The Building Control service also helps meet Priority 3. Relevant measures of achievement in relation to this priority include more streamlined decision making processes, improved community engagement, further partnership working and more accessible services through information technology. As the service is in direct competition with the private sector a number of measures have been undertaken to improve speed of decision making, adding value to the service provided (including free advice, dedicated Fire Safety Officer and regular contact with customers through the Planning User Group). The retention of the Section’s Chartermark has assisted this process of continuous improvement.

2.4. Adur District has also approved a Corporate Plan for the period 2005 to 2008,

which contains similar Council priorities. These include:-

• Priority 1 - Protect and enhance core services to the community. • Priority 4 - Keep Council Tax increases to the minimum level

practicable. 2.5. Based on the Priorities and Measures of Achievement set out in both

Corporate Plans, it is clear that the provision of a Joint Building Control Service can contribute to meeting these objectives.

2.6. In July 2007 both Councils agreed to the following Joint Strategic Objectives:

• To protect and enhance priority services

• To promote a clean and green environment

• To re-vitalise, regenerate and create lively economies

• To support and contribute to the health, safety and wellbeing of the area

In addition, both Councils are due to agree revised and updated Corporate Plans in September.

3. Service Review Approach to Business Transformation

The Approach over the Next 3 Years. 3.1. As the Building Control Service has been through a fairly extensive review

when considering merging the services 2 years ago, it is not considered that this is an area that would necessarily require a fundamental service review. In this respect the project team spent some time learning from examples of best practice from other authorities that had embarked on the provision of a joint building control service. Based on advice from the District Surveyors Association, the Project Team visited three authorities at the forefront of joint working, each representing a different model of joint working:-

i) Crawley and Horsham Districts ii) CNC Building Control Consultancy (Norfolk)

iii) Fareham and Gosport Districts

The results of this analysis are attached as Appendix BC2 but some key lessons can be summarised as:

12

The need to be realistic about the lead-in time from inception to going

live as a partnership. The need to harmonise gradings as well as terms and conditions for

staff. The need for an integrated ICT solution from the outset.

The need for a robust service level agreement between partnering

authorities which establishes the basis for apportioning costs, income and recharging based on workload. This agreement must be subject to regular review.

Not to expect that all issues will be resolved by the 'Go Live' date, but

to have in place structures/arrangements that would make sure outstanding and emerging issues are handled properly as the partnership develops. These are likely to relate to H.R., finance, ICT and legal matters.

The need to carry staff with you at all times, through consultation, as

well as negotiation on salaries and gradings, terms and conditions etc. A willingness to remain open about expanding the partnership to other

authorities but first, it is important to allow time for the initial partnering arrangements to settle in.

With a bigger critical mass, opportunities arise to develop specialisms

that would help win new work and fee income as well as provide the necessary career progression to retain staff that would otherwise be difficult to recruit.

3.2. As the authorities were only providing joint working for Building Control a

number of the issues relating to ICT, staff terms and conditions etc will have to be dealt with corporately but will obviously impact on how quickly a truly joint service can be provided.

3.3. The previous review set out an 11 point Action Plan with a timescale of 9

months to secure implementation. This was an ambitious timescale particularly as it envisaged resolving differences in terms and conditions through the pay and grading review process by 31st March 2007. Nevertheless, the Action Plan can be used as the framework for moving forward and the decision to appoint a new Building Control Partnership Manager will greatly assist the process of Business Transformation.

3.4. In terms of timescale for delivery of the service the following provisional

timeline has been developed:

Appoint Building Control Partnership Manager - September 2008 On the basis that access can be required to each other’s IT systems co-locate all Building Control Officers - January 2009

13

Develop an Implementation Strategy in consultation with staff - February 2009 Consultation with customers March/April 2009 Prepare and implement a ‘light touch’ service review to analyse scope for further savings, develop common procedures and service standards - June/July 2009 Develop strategy for marketing and partnering opportunities to maximise fee income June/July 2009

Provided that a common ICT system (importantly including EDRMS) can be implemented provide a joint service from one location - April 2010

3.5. Within this timescale it would also be important to have thoroughly investigated

the use of mobile technology so that Building Control Officers have the ability to input data directly into the Uniform system and can view all historic data electronically. The ability to use mobile technology would reduce the need for office space and allow for more flexible service delivery.

3.6. During the period up until April 2010 it is intended that staff would remain

employed for the respective authorities but new joint posts such as the Structural Engineer would be appointed as a joint post employed by Adur with the post holder’s time being allocated to each authority depending on workload. The same approach would also be required for the new Joint Manager and the apportionment of costs would relate to the respective workload of both authorities. Nevertheless, by co-locating Officers as quickly as possible reporting to a single Manager the advantages of joint working can be realised as quickly as possible.

Necessary Corporate Support

3.7. It is considered essential that for an effective joint Building Control the new

joint Manager has Officers working together as soon as possible to help bring forward the implementation strategy and adoption of shared service standards. This requires corporate support to resolve accommodation issues and an IT solution to enable all Officers to gain easy access to the different IT systems (although both Councils’ use Uniform, as indicated previously, the systems are used differently). The ability to work as a completely joined up service is dependent on the implementation of Electronic Document and Records Management System (EDRMS) so that access to historic and live files/data can be retrieved from one location.

3.8. In addition, it will be essential that support is provided from Legal and Finance

to develop a robust service level agreement between the authorities which establishes the basis for apportioning costs, income and recharging based on workload.

14

Capital Expenditure Required.

3.9. The main capital expenditure will relate to ensuring the use of common ICT systems. Resolving the use of EDRMS at an early stage would be critical. This is a corporate matter and has potentially significant cost implications although Adur has already invested heavily into the Census EDRMS and Worthing has £325,000 allocated in its Capital programme towards implementing a corporate EDRMS. A natural progression from the Implementation of EDRMS would be the introduction of mobile technology and the cost of this would need to be assessed as part of the service review.

3.10. At this stage it is difficult to identify exactly what the capital costs for providing

one location and resolving IT issues. An initial study of accommodation at Worthing suggested that additional accommodation could be found at a cost of £5,000 and together with additional PC’s could amount to approximately £10,000.

Use of External Consultancy or Support.

3.11. Given the work that has already been undertaken it is not envisaged that

there would be a need for external assistance in relation to Business Transformation other than assistance to explore the level of service review required and advice on ICT and mobile technology.

4. Risk management

4.1. The risks to the establishment of an effective joint Building Control service relate primarily to the following corporate and political issues:

The impact on staff morale and ability to retain staff if the Pay and

Grading process and single pay structure cannot be resolved to address anomalies in terms and conditions.

The need to ensure the retention of market pay supplements to retain and recruit staff.

Significant delays in resolving ICT issues across both Councils Political agreement required on a service level agreement between

authorities which establishes the basis for apportioning costs, income and recharging based on workload.

4.2. These and other corporate risks with partnership working are already

identified and measures identified to manage/control the risks to reduce any adverse impact.

4.3. Other risks to the joint Building Control Group are already identified as they

are common to both services at the present time. These relate primarily to the ability to compete with the private sector and the impact that this could have on maintaining a healthy trading account. The provision of a joint Building Control service is seen as minimising these risks in the future by creating a new structure with a larger critical mass of professional staff able to promote and market the service to maximise future fee income.

15

5. Service Objectives and Customer Expectations

Service Objectives

5.1. The main objective is to create a joint service with a better critical mass of

staffing resources, including the opportunity to employ specialist staff rather than incurring high consultancy costs, under a streamlined management arrangement. The intention is that this new service would be capable of delivering performance to a consistently high standard and it would be important to underpin this by adopting a common vision and service objectives.

5.2. It is considered that a slight variation on the vision suggested during the

previous Building Control should be adopted:-

“To establish and deliver a cost efficient, seamless and consistent local authority building control service for Adur and Worthing customers, applying the highest standards of performance, quality, customer care and satisfaction.” The objectives of the joint service should be:-

• To achieve efficiency savings through streamlined processes and

procedures, electronic service delivery, common procurement and increased staff productivity;

• To deliver a service to the highest standards of performance, quality, customer care and satisfaction, learning from examples of best practice;

• To retain and win back market share from private sector Approved Inspectors and develop partnering arrangements with local businesses;

• To use new trading powers to deliver enhanced services and profitability;

• To maximise the contribution the service makes towards community strategy, corporate policy and planning policy objectives for sustainable construction and development.

5.3. The vision outlined in the government’s recent consultation paper is also

relevant and sets more general service delivery targets:

“Our vision is for a service which delivers safe, healthy, accessible and sustainable buildings for current and future generations. To deliver this vision we need a building control system which: • works with the customer to help them achieve a building project which

meets their expectations, as well as building standards and the public need works hand-in-hand with other regulators to provide a coherent service to customers

• ensures that the level of inspection is appropriate to the risk and need • gives local authorities the powers needed to enforce building standards

16

• ensures all Building Control Bodies regularly assess and improve their performance

• is professional, well-managed and ensures resources are used appropriately

• offers end-users an effective means of resolving disputes about compliance.

We also need to be clear with customers that building control will not: • act as a 'Clerk of Works' monitoring every stage of the construction

process on site. That is a matter for the contracts and arrangements put in place between the client and builder. Ultimately, compliance is clearly the responsibility of the person carrying out the work

• address issues such as the finish and aesthetics of the final project

where these are not Building Regulations standards - these are a matter for designers, builders, and new home warranty providers

• offer protection to a client in a contract with a builder. This is a matter

of contract law.”

SMART Targets

5.4. A system of monitoring certain performance targets are already in place and would need to be modified and expanded to ensure the effective monitoring of performance across the new joint service (see Section 7).

Customer Consultation

5.5. It will be important to consult with customers in connection with future service

delivery particularly in relation to changes in location of offices and the level of service provided. At Worthing the Building Control Manager is involved in the Planning User Forum which has provided an opportunity to discuss with local agents some of the issues surrounding partnership working and this would be a useful Forum for gauging opinion on future service standards. The retention of the Chartermark Award, and regular Customer satisfaction surveys have also been very useful in the past in understanding customer expectations and to help continuously improve the level of service delivery. A joint agents/builders Forum is considered an effective way to explain proposed changes to the service as a result of Partnership Working and to start a consultation process with customers. Contact Centre

5.6. The majority of calls to the Building Control Office are not from the general

public but are to try and arrange site visits/inspections and for technical advice which has to be provided by Officers. The benefit of the Contact Centre for this service is therefore limited. Nevertheless, it would be beneficial to transfer calls across to Worthing’s contact centre as staff now have experience in dealing with some of the more general building control calls. Whilst there would be capacity within Worthing’s Contact Centre, there

17

are a number of technical difficulties which would need to be overcome before this could be achieved. Prior to resolving these issues it is likely that the existing arrangements for dealing with Adur related calls would continue although the use of new direct dial numbers would continue to reduce calls via the current County switchboard.

6. Role of the Strategic Director

6.1. The main support in relation Strategic Directors will be in relation to resolving

corporate issues that potentially will affect the project, principally accommodation, single pay structure, ICT and customer services.

7. Performance Matters

7.1. Performance across the two Councils varies, as do the service standards in

some areas. For example, in 2007/08, Adur District Council checked 83% of full plans within 21 working days, compared to 86% checked in Worthing within 10 days. In Adur’s case, this represents an improvement on the 76% achieved last year and a significant improvement on the performance in the previous two years before (46% and 48%). In Worthing, performance has been much more consistent, with little change since 2003/04.

7.2. Both authorities regularly monitor fee income and plan vetting performance

and have maintained their respective QA manuals, however, compliance with other performance criteria has not been monitored.

7.3. This is in common with many other authorities and there are no statutory

national indicators in relation to Building Control performance. However, in June 2006 the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) produced Building Control Performance Standards and has sought to encourage the adoption of the indicators by local authorities and Approved Inspectors. Unfortunately a number of the published criteria have been criticised by local authorities as being difficult to monitor and in some respects performance indicators being somewhat meaningless. As a result very few authorities or Approved Inspectors have adopted these performance indicators. This does make it difficult to compare performance between authorities and Approved Inspectors. Often a measurement of success is judged by how effective a building control service is in maintaining its market share of building inspection work.

7.4. One of the tasks of the new joint Building Control Manager will be to set out

service targets and where possible collect additional comparable performance data from other local authorities. This will assist in terms of setting appropriate performance targets for the new service and help create a culture of continuous improvement. By publishing this information on a regular basis and comparing this data with the performance of other authorities and Approved Inspectors it will also help in terms of promoting and marketing the service.

18

8. Financial Matters 8.1. The cost of the two services is set out below including the actual costs for the

last financial year and the estimate for this year.

Current cost of Adur’s Building Control Service Actual 2007/08 Item

Budget 2008/09

£ £

196,736 1. Direct salaries 217,120 45,758 2. Consultancy Fees 37,920

84 3. Publicity 1,700 392 4. Supplies and services 2,960

242,970 Total operating costs 259,700

Income (155,190) 5. Fees and charges (166,520)

87,779 Net operating costs 93,180

70,435 6. Support costs 71,080

158,214 Net service expenditure 164,260

Current Cost of Worthing's Building Control Service Actual

2007/08 Item Budget 2008/09

£ £

278,000 1. Direct salaries 300,500 16,570 2. Consultancy Fees 16,900

480 3. Publicity 480 29,562 4. Supplies and services 29,960

324,612 Total operating costs 347,840

Income (313,388) 5. Fees and charges (274,740)

11,224 Net operating costs 73,100

131,190 6. Support costs 123,270

142,414 Net service expenditure 196,370

19

8.2. The total operating costs for both Councils is therefore anticipated to be in excess of £600,000 with the bulk of this £517,000 being direct salaries. Last year the combined fee income achieved was £468,578.

8.3. As indicated previously, the service can only recover its costs relating to the

provision of its statutory functions and this does not include work, for instance, associated with enforcement or Dangerous Structures. Adur's ratio of fee-earning to non fee-earning work is 54%:46% compared to Worthing’s 56%:44%. A direct comparison between these figures is difficult, due to different accounting approaches. A unified service, operating under one accounting regime, would establish a firm single baseline against which performance measures could be applied to improve the ratio in favour of a higher fee earning percentage, thus making the merged service more cost effective. As indicated previously cost effectiveness could also be improved by employing the better critical mass of staffing resources to promote and market the service and use available trading powers to enhance profitability. A number of authorities are able to achieve a ratio of 65%:35% and better whilst maintaining competitiveness and it would be appropriate to review the split between fee and non-fee earning work as part of the service review.

8.4. In considering the scope for savings various structures have been considered

following on from the initial work undertaken by the project team in relation to the previous building control review. The decision to appoint a new joint Building Control Manager would immediately create some savings but it is recognised that the service particularly at Adur has been under resourced and this has affected performance and at times required the use of consultants and agency staff to cope with the workload. Having considered a number of options, it is considered that the structure set out on the chart below would be the most appropriate. Whilst, one of the two current Building Control Managers’ posts is omitted from the combined structure it should be noted that one of the Principal Building Control Officers would be authorised to act as a deputy to the Joint Building Control Manager. It is important to stress, however, that this is only an indicative structure at this stage and it would be important for the new Joint Manager to determine the most appropriate structure in due course. A number of options have been considered at this stage, including the creation of a new marketing post, but the consensus amongst staff and the existing Managers is that the Principal Building Control Officers should have a number of additional responsibilities as indicated below, including marketing:

20

One BCM post omitted from existing combined complement. Each PBCO post to have additional responsibility –

Partnering/Marketing, Quality Assurance, Access Officer, performance monitoring and dangerous structures.

Previous 0.6 BCO post at Adur becomes full time Technical Support Sections combined with enhancement from 2.34

posts to 3 posts - one post to be at Senior Technician level. New Structural Engineer to be part time post paid from Consultancy

budgets.

8.5. It is important to stress that, although the structure looks slightly top heavy, the Principal Building Control Offices are not Managers in the traditional sense. In this respect they would have a significant case load of applications to deal with and would deal with the more complex development proposals. It is envisaged that, through marketing the service, there would be the opportunity to increase the level of partnering with local architects and builders and it is anticipated that this would increase the number of larger development proposals being submitted. Both authorities currently have two Principal Building Control Officers in their staff structures (although Adur describe these as Senior Building Control Officers) and, therefore, the possible joint structure indicated does not change existing establishment posts.

8.6. Under these proposals, there is likely to be some financial saving. However,

to ensure that there are sufficient staff resources to provide the quality of service necessary to compete with Approved Inspectors and hopefully generate additional fee income, it will be necessary for the part-time Building Control Officer at Adur (presently 0.6 FTE) to become full-time. It is also proposed to combine the two Technical Support Sections and to increase the resources available from 2.34 to 3 full-time post equivalents. One of these posts would be at a technician level with responsibility for administrative co-ordination. The intention is that the new Technician post would also help to take some of the more minor technical work away from Officers and this would include such matters as fee checking.

8.7. Although, further detailed financial analysis will need to be undertaken, it is

likely that these proposals will create an overall financial ‘saving’ for both Councils. The cost of increasing the administrative support is likely to be in the order of £11,500 a year, while the cost of increasing the hours of the part time Building Control Officer at Adur to a full-time post will be approximately £15,000. This provides an overall increase in cost of £26,500. This would be more than offset by the saving achieved by only have one Manager. This post is currently being advertised at a salary up to £48,000 (c£59,000 with on costs) and there would be a saving of approximately £55,000 (based on the lower Managers salary at Adur). There is likely to be a net saving, therefore, of over £28,500.

8.8. There is also potentially a further opportunity for savings, through the creation

of a new Structural Engineer post. Worthing used to employ a Structural Engineer on a full-time basis but has been unable to attract a suitable candidate in recent years. However, both Councils have consultancy budgets, which they use for structural engineering amounting to

21

approximately £40,000. It is feasible that a Structural Engineer post at Principal level could be created to serve both Councils, giving a further saving. Both Councils’ currently use Consultants for this advice and it is considered that a part time post (possibly 3 days a week) could provide the necessary in house advice. The scope to reduce this to a part time post to cover both authorities has been due to reducing the number of applications that require checking by Officers undertaking a risk assessment for each case. It should be noted that a number of Councils do not undertake any checking of structural calculations; however, this is another example of where enhancing the level of service provided can increase the chances of competing with Approved Inspectors. The ability to fill this post is dependent on being able to attract a suitable candidate and it may well be that the salary level being offered has to be increased using a market supplement, however, it would still provide better “value for money” than continuing to use consultancy budgets across both Councils. A recent market salary assessment for Principal Building Control Officers justified a salary in the region of £38,000 (c£47,000 with on costs). On the basis of a part time Structural Engineer even at this higher salary it would create an extra saving of over £18,000. It should be noted that savings on salaries have to be approximate at this stage without a single pay structure in place.

8.9. Finally, there are potentially some other savings where duplication of

registration and membership issues are considered. For example, registration of Local Authority Building Control Services, the procurement of technical indexes and joint ISO Accreditation could result in a further saving of up to £5,000 a year. Further work needs to be undertaken to verify whether these savings could be achieved but overall there is potentially quite a significant saving across both Councils.

8.10. In terms of apportioning the costs of the service, it is considered that this should

initially be based on the number of applications dealt with by the two authorities and this would provide an approximate 66%:34% split. The following table summarises the savings possible at this stage.

Summary of Potential “Savings” anticipated over the next 3 years

08/09 09/10 10/11 £9,000* £5,940 – WBC £3,060 – ADC

£46,500 £30,690 – WBC £15,810 – ADC

£51,500 ** £33,990 – WBC £17,510 – ADC

* Assuming Joint Manager starts on 1st December 2008. ** Scope for further savings on operating costs in relation to accommodation, ICT printing

and supplies/services.

8.11. As indicated in the introduction to this report, it is important to stress that Building Control Service should not be making a significant profit over any given three year trading period and, therefore, any reduction in operating costs should not be necessarily seen as a corporate saving. Nevertheless, by reducing operating costs it can help ensure a healthy trading account and any future surplus would provide the opportunity to reduce building regulation

22

fees which would help to maintain a competitive edge with the private sector. In addition any surplus will help to address Adur’s current trading account deficit. In addition, by improving the ratio of fee and non-fee earning work in favour of a higher fee earning percentage, there is scope to make savings on the net operating costs to both Councils. In this respect, it is clear from the government consultation paper that it is likely to introduce changes to accounting procedures to make it harder to use surpluses for other local authority services and to ensure that any surplus is re-invested into the service. It is likely that changes will require Local Authorities to provide details of Building Control income and expenditure to allow more effective monitoring by auditors in the future.

Opportunities for Maximising Income

8.12. The above represents only a saving on the Joint Salaries Budget but would

still represent a 9% saving in 09/10. It is also important to stress that the above figures do not include any assumptions in connection with increased fee income. As the above table indicates the net operating costs for the combined service would still amount to £124,780 and it would be important to increase fee income to reduce this cost to both Council’s. The benefits of a larger Building Control Group with greater critical mass would be to enhance opportunities for marketing the service and by entering into partnering schemes with local builders and agents seek to maximise fee income. Whilst it is difficult to quantify how successful this approach might be, other partnerships visited have secured significant benefits and have turned their trading accounts around from deficit to healthy surpluses, enabling them to keep fees down and remain competitive.

Cost of Combined Service

Item Estimated Budget

20010/11 £ 1. Direct salaries 513,020 2. Consultancy Fees 17,920 3. Publicity 2,180 4. Supplies and services 32,920 Total operating costs 566,040 Income

5. Fees and charges (441,260*)

* Assuming no increase in fee

income on 2008.

Net Operating Costs (Excluding support costs) 124,780

23

Single Pay Structure

8.13. Following the resolution of the Joint Staff Committee on the 23rd July 2008 not to implement any of the pay model options at this stage (other than to deal with any gender inequalities and the joint refuse and recycling service) harmonisation of salaries will need to be addressed as part of service review. The costs of moving to a single pay structure would be funded as part of the service review next year and it may be necessary to implement a phased implementation depending on the overall cost. However, it is clear from the case studies of where partnership working has been undertaken at other Authorities that it is essential that staff working within joint teams need to be on the same terms and conditions as soon as possible and this will be an important consideration in determining any phased implementation.

9. Accommodation and Location

9.1. For a single joint Building Control Service to be provided, then evidence obtained from visits to other Councils and discussions with relevant partners suggests that it would be far better to provide a single service in a single location from an early stage. Shoreham and Worthing are not that far apart but it is considered important, particularly if an external Building Control manager is appointed, that their staff are located in one location fairly quickly after his or her appointment to build team spirit and to start working together to ensure the provision of a service with common standards, interpretation and application of the Building Regulations.

9.2. An important aspect of providing a joint building control service would be

providing a consistent approach to service delivery. The development of a single Quality Assurance manual would assist together with regular team meetings and training sessions in relation to the ever increasing amount of new legislation. Initially it would not be possible to immediately co-locate all staff because of the different administrative and IT systems etc. However, the existing Managers and staff recognise the benefits of officers working together as soon as possible and it is for this reason that one of the early objectives is to aim for Officers to be co-located by January 2009. It would be important to retain the existing administrative systems in place and Officers would still need to retain hot desking facilities at the remaining office. This would also enable agents to be able to call in to see a duty Officer on a more limited rota basis.

9.3. In other Councils that have been visited as part of the previous Review, the

services have always been located in one place, although in the Norfolk example, the service has been extended into providing a local office, which is manned for at least some of the working week. However, these tend to be larger services covering larger geographical areas and it is not clear at this stage whether there would be a need for an area office to be based to ensure a presence in both areas. Ultimately, once a common ICT system is in place it would be envisaged that the joint building control group would be located in one office and be relatively self contained in terms of administrative and technical support.

24

9.4. From a customer perspective, the operation of a service in a single location

may benefit customers from one Council more than the other, although it is likely that, in practice, a number of agents in particular will operate across both Districts. It could be argued that as Worthing has the bulk of the work (about two thirds), that it would make more sense to locate the service there. In this respect, there would be efficiency savings in terms of officers’ time and costs travelling to sites and it would be a more sustainable solution. However, consideration should also be given to the fact that Building Control is a very outward looking service and much of the work is undertaken on site, with Officers spending much of their day on site with developers/builders, in order to undertake site inspections etc. As indicated previously there are opportunities for mobile working and this would also reduce the need for desk space providing opportunities for hot desking in the future. Nevertheless, there is still a preference for locating the service closest to the majority of its customers, however, as stated previously one of the risks in relation to moving forward in relation to a single location relates to resolving ICT issues.

10. Sustainability

10.1. The delivery of a high quality building control service can help to ensure that all development within both authorities meet the increasingly rigorous sustainability requirements set out within the Building Regulations particularly in relation to thermal efficiency and insulation properties.

11. The Equality Standard

11.1. It will be important to ensure that improvements to Worthing’s Building Control service required to meet the testing equality requirements necessary to maintain their Chartermark Award are implemented for the new Joint Service. Adur’s recent appointment of a female Building Control Officer will also help in what has traditionally been a male dominated service.

12. Training and Development

Key Training and Development Needs

12.1. Given the specialist nature of the work, considerable emphasis is placed on continuous professional development for all Officers. It is essential that all staff are trained in relation to new legislation and this will involve both in house and external training courses. Regular team meetings are used to ensure that the building regulations are interpreted in a consistent manner.

Investors in People

12.2. As the service has little contact with other sections, Councillors or the wider

public, it is essential that corporate information is cascaded down to the group and, likewise, issues raised by staff can be considered at a corporate level.

25

The development of a Communications Strategy for the joint officer structure will help to ensure that IIP could be secured and maintained.

13. Human Resources

13.1. Issues surrounding TUPE implications will need to be addressed corporately

but should have no bearings on the ability to create a joint service. There is no direct impact on staff with the proposed changes to the current structures but as indicated before equalising terms and conditions is an important priority for both Councils.

14. Barriers for progressing shared services

14.1. Aligning ICT systems has been the single most challenging issue for all of

those authorities were visited by Officers and who have merged their Building Control Services. In our case, Adur and Worthing should benefit from the major advantage that both authorities use the same up-to-date software solutions for processing building control work, (i.e. CAPS Uniform). Nevertheless, there are marked differences in the way that the software is used and historic data is stored. On this latter point, Worthing has stored the majority of its historic data on microfiche and, more recently, on CD whilst Adur has retained virtually all hard copy files.

Nevertheless, the main ICT challenges focus around:-

• Whether the combined service should migrate to one single database

or operate by sharing each other’s databases and the technical solutions for this to happen;

• What implications this will have for linkages with associated

Development Control Services in each authority; • The need to provide a single EDRMS solution. Currently, Adur is

developing a corporate solution via the CenSus Partnership. 15. Conclusion

15.1. The Building Control service, by virtue of its specialist nature providing an

outward looking service, is relatively easy to join together. Difficulties in recruitment have affected Adur’s ability at times to maintain performance and a number of authorities have recognised the importance of a larger more efficient service and have formed partnership arrangements. The benefits achieved by other authorities have highlighted the scope to reduce operating costs, increase fee income and maintain a healthy trading account.

15.2. The service has already started the process of joining together by advertising

a new Joint Manager’s position and it would be important for any new manager to lead any “light touch” service review and develop common service standards and performance targets. The joint service could secure a

26

9% reduction in its salary budget for 2009/10 and there is potential for increasing fee income through active marketing of the service.

15.3. The barriers to the provision of a single team relate to issues surrounding ICT

and accommodation. It is also important that other service reviews such as finance and legal are progressed to ensure the necessary support to agree service level agreements and the apportioning of costs and fee income.

**********************************

27

APPENDIX BC 1

Current Staffing Structure for Adur Building Control

Consultancy Budget £45,000 of which £20,000 for Structural Engineering Advice

BCM (Band 4)

SBCO (Band 6)

SBCO (Band 6)

BCO (SO2)

BCO (0.6 Post)

(Band 6)

Admin 0.8 Post (Sc.2/3)

Adur

28

Current Staffing Structure for Worthing Building Control Group

Principal BC Officer MB1

Building Control

Manager MB3 GP3

Clerical Assistant Sc1-2

Building Control Assistant Sc2-3

Building Control Officer

Career grade up to SO2*

Building Control Officer

Career grade up to SO2*

Building Control Officer

Career grade up to SO2

Principal BC Officer MB1

* Scarcity Factor 8%

Fire Safety Officer

SO1

Building Control Officer

Career Grade up to SO1

29

APPENDIX BC 2 Crawley and Horsham

The first visit took place on 23 March 2006, to Horsham District Council. Horsham and Crawley Councils have agreed to merge their Building Control Services with effect from 1 April 2006, with Horsham as host authority. They key points to note from this visit are:-

• Following independent Best Value Reviews, the two Councils agreed to

merge their respective Building Control Services in order to establish a better critical mass, to improve standards, reduce costs and meet the challenges of private sector competition from Approved Inspectors.

• Crawley has agreed to contract the service to Horsham for an initial period of

5 years, reviewable. • Crawley staff have been transferred to Horsham under TUPE arrangements. • A Partnership Board, (2 Cabinet Members and 2 Senior Managers) manage

the merged service at a strategic level. The Board has no decision-making powers, but makes recommendations to Horsham's Executive on matters arising from its role of monitoring performance. In particular the Board monitors Horsham's service level agreement with Crawley on the quality of Building Control Service delivery.

• An experimental Marketing post is being established to protect the existing

market and to help win new work. The post will be expected to pay for itself within the first year.

The key issues and lessons arising from the Horsham/Crawley model are:- • The need to be realistic about the lead-in time from inception to going live as

a partnership. In this case it has taken two years. • The need to harmonise gradings as well as terms and conditions for staff. • The need to establish one fee structure for both partner authorities. • The need for an integrated ICT solution from the outset. • Economies of scale are best achieved by operating the service as one

integrated team from one location, but with flexible working arrangements (e.g. home working).

• Crawley's liaison between planning and building control has been

disadvantaged by the transfer of staff to Horsham. • The need for a robust service level agreement between partnering authorities

which establishes the basis for apportioning costs, income and recharging, based on workload. This agreement must be subject to regular review.

30

• Not to expect that all issues will be resolved by the 'Go Live' date, but to have

in place structures/arrangements that would make sure outstanding and emerging issues are handled properly as the partnership develops. These are likely to relate to H.R., finance, ICT and legal matters.

• The need to carry staff with you at all times, through consultation, as well as

negotiation on salaries and gradings, terms and conditions etc. • A willingness to remain open about expanding the partnership to other

authorities but first, it is important to allow time for the initial partnering arrangements to settle in.

• At the same time, a need for proper risk assessments to help determine the

exit strategy should the partnership need to be dissolved for whatever reason. • With a bigger critical mass, opportunities arise to develop specialisms that

would help win new work and fee income as well as provide the necessary career progression to retain staff that would otherwise be difficult to recruit.

CNC Building Control Consultancy (Norfolk) On 26 April 2006 the Project Team visited CNC Building Control Consultancy, which is based in Norwich. CNC is a partnership of 3 Councils, Norfolk City, Broadland District and South Norfolk District. A fourth Council, Breckland District was part of the initial discussions and may join the partnership in due course. As a model, CNC differs from Horsham/Crawley in that the consultancy markets and promotes itself very differently. Horsham/Crawley is clearly badged as a Horsham Council service. Although hosted by Broadland Council, CNC badges itself as a consultancy, with little reference to its local authority roots. Nevertheless, the main drivers for partnership working are very similar in both models. The key features of the CNC model are as follows:-

• A commitment to reduce costs by moving to a 90% fee earning structure (the

current fee/non-fee earning structure is 83%:17%) by cutting overheads and on costs.

• A dynamic approach to winning new fee earning business, employing a full-

time Business Development Executive (£20-28,000) to promote the service and recover market share previously lost to Approved Inspectors.

• Although hosted by Broadland Council, CNC's terms and conditions are an

amalgam of the best features of each of the 3 partner authorities, assisting staff 'buy-in' to the new venture.

• Staff have been deliberately seconded rather than TUPE'd into the new

organisation, with the host authority having responsibility for management.

31

• A Joint Committee made up of one elected member from each Council makes strategic decisions on business plans and surpluses, whilst fee setting is delegated to the service Director.

• The partnership was established in May 2004 for a period of 5 years, with a 1-

year notice period for any one partner wishing to withdraw during that time. • Unlike the Horsham/Crawley model, CNC receives specific support services

from each of the 3 partner authorities, as well as Norfolk County Council. • Surpluses are ringfenced in CNC's account and are used to offset residual

costs. • The integration of ICT arrangements (hardware, databases, EDRMS) has not

been successfully resolved and remains an ongoing problem. • CNC have developed successful branding reflecting a consultancy style

ethos. The key issues and lessons from the CNC model are as follows:- • It is vital from the outset to have an agreed ICT strategy, which supports the

integration of services. Attempting to do this once the partnership is set up has proved problematic.

• Dividing support services 3 ways is also problematic and best avoided. • There are considerable benefits in operating from one service location, whilst

allowing flexible working arrangements through the use of 'mobile' ICT and home working.

• The marketing/business development role fits CNC's consultancy ethos but is

only just breaking even. • Staff secondment rather than TUPE has proved a simpler, easier and more

cost effective arrangement. • CNC's ability to maximise its fee earning ratio has been made possible by ring

fencing surpluses to offset the residual costs of the service, rather than losing them to the corporate account.

Fareham and Gosport

The Project Team's final visit was to Fareham on 18 May 2006, to learn from the partnership experience of Fareham and Gosport Councils. Fareham and Gosport signed a legal agreement in October 2002, resulting in Fareham delivering a joint Building Control Service for both Councils badged as a Building Control Partnership.

32

The key features of the Fareham/Gosport model are as follows:- • The original 3 year agreement signed in 2002 was recently renewed on an

open-ended basis, reflecting both Councils' commitment to long term partnership working. The agreement requires 12 months notice to be given to dissolve the partnership. A Memorandum of Understanding, which sets out agreed performance standards, supports the agreement.

• Fareham Council hosts the service, with a small part-time area-office

presence at Gosport. The host authority provides administrative and accounting services. The drivers for partnership working are similar to the other two models. Key factors being economies of scale, a slimmer management structure, consistency and quality of service delivery, establishing a better critical mass to compete with Approved Inspectors in the private sector. Savings were not regarded as the principal driver for change.

• The partnership has chosen a secondment (rather than TUPE) arrangement

as a simpler solution. Employees retain their original contracts, with an addendum to reflect partnership working. Terms and conditions are harmonised through an annual honorarium adjustment. The legal agreement provides for cross-delegation of building control powers to enable staff to work across both authorities, (under S.101 of the Local Government Act 1972).

• Whilst the host authority, Fareham, provides administrative support for the

combined service, payroll and H.R. are dealt with by each employing authority.

• Corporate governance is initially via an Officer Group consisting of two

Directors and two Finance Officers from each authority, meeting monthly on service planning and performance matters. Secondly, it is provided via a Partnership Panel of Members, plus the Officer Group, meeting quarterly on strategic matters such as business planning and budgets. Recommendations from the Partnership Panel have to be referred to each authority for decision.

• The legal agreement determines the split of costs, surpluses and deficits

based on actual figures for each local authority area. This generally approximates to a 60:40 split (Fareham: Gosport).

• Budgeted operating surpluses of up to 10% are returned to each authority

according to fee income. Surpluses above 10% are re-invested in the service.

• The partnership has developed a good reputation in South Hampshire and

has been successful, because of its size, in partnering with government agencies and private sector companies locally.

33

The key issues and lessons from the Building Control Partnership model are as follows:- • Keeping staff and unions informed and consulted at all stages and receiving

their support was considered essential to the success of the partnership. • If they were to start again, Fareham and Gosport would appoint a dedicated

project manager to manage the development and implementation of this complex partnership arrangement.

• Corporate buy-in at the highest level is essential as well as a corporate

management team with a 'can do' attitude. • An ICT strategy and resources agreed by partners at the start of the process

is essential.

*************************************