rother and hastings building control draft partnership ... · 2 contents 1. summary 2. background...

1

ROTHER AND HASTINGS BUILDING CONTROL DRAFT PARTNERSHIP PROPOSAL

20 January 2011

2

CONTENTS

1. Summary 2. Background 2.1 Partnership Project 2.2 Statutory Background 3. Accounts and finance

3.1 Financial reporting arrangements 4. Personnel and HR

4.1 Employment of staff 4.2 Harmonisation of pay and conditions 4.3 Training and development requirements 4.4 Union and staff consultation

5. Management arrangements and Structure of Team 5.1 Operational/day to day management 5.2 Strategic management 5.3 Structure of the partnership 5.4 Workload

6. Service standards and delivery 6.1 Comparison of services provided 6.2 Recommended service standards 6.3 Location of the service 6.4 Ensuring a presence in Hastings 6.5 Maintaining reciprocal links with other services 6.6 Links to and from Development Control 6.7 Links to and from Planning Enforcement 6.8 Links to and from Land Charges

7. Information technology 8. Legal

8.1 Draft Heads of Terms and Schedules Appendix A Services to be provided by the Partnership Appendix B Service Standards and Performance Indicators Appendix C Assessment of Risks and Benefits Appendix D Agents Forum Feedback – 10 Nov 2010

3

1. Summary Partnership working has been identified as the way forward for some Local Authority service areas. Competitive services such as Building Control have the potential to improve their level of service, make savings in running costs and be more competitive. Working as one team from one office base together with a degree of remote working, allows more effective use of staff resources and provides better cover for leave and other absences. It is proposed that the team works from the Rother office in Bexhill. Rother will act as the host authority for the provision of the service and for support services such as Personnel, Finance and IT and take the lead on the management and employment issues for the duration of the Partnership, including staff currently employed by Hastings.

The Hastings team would be transferred to RDC, with TUPE protection. It is intended that the current post holders of both teams would retain their present posts with the exception of the HBC manager who would become a 0.6FTE surveyor. However from the analysis of workloads it is clear that not all staff would be required to deliver the new service. The former HBC BCM is on flexible retirement and therefore RDC would be liable for his pension liability if he transfers employer.

There would be a Partnership Agreement between the two authorities, performance to be subject to scrutiny by the Improvement and Resources Overview & Scrutiny Committee.

The Partnership would be for 5 years commencing on or about 1 May 2011. The agreement would contain provisions allowing for early termination in certain circumstances and for extension if both authorities agree.

A risk assessment has been carried out and the issues identified would be catered for in the terms of the agreement. The agreement would incorporate service level agreements. The agreement would incorporate rules for apportioning costs and income between the two authorities.

Both Building Control computer databases would initially be run concurrently on all PCs, keeping Rother/Hastings data separate, but the situation would be reviewed after the Partnership has bedded in.

The budget indicates that cost savings would be achieved of £70,576 across both Councils.

2. Background LABC (local authority building control) has been subject to competition since 1985 in the form of private sector ‘Approved Inspectors’. Formerly, the private

4

sector concentrated on lucrative commercial work, but now competes in all aspects of building regulation including domestic extensions. This competition continues to erode the regulatory position of Local Authorities. 2.1 Partnership Project In December 2009 following an approach from Hastings Borough Council (HBC) the Director of Services (DoS) of Rother District Council (RDC) and Director of Regeneration, Homes and Communities of HBC, requested that a Project Team consisting the two Heads of Planning and Building Control Managers look at the possibility of joint working with Rother acting as the host authority but both authorities as equal partners. On 24 August 2010 it was agreed by the RDC Senior Management Team (SMT) and later by HBC Corporate Management Group and Cabinet that the project team produce a Partnership Proposal document for both SMTs to consider in December 2010 in order for Rother District Council to operate the Building Control Service from 1 May 2011. Partnership working can be undertaken in a variety of ways. On the basis of experiences of partnership working elsewhere, the greatest potential for success is derived from a fully integrated partnership. This involves the integration of both existing teams into a single formally constituted combined team with one manager providing services across both authority areas. This is the recommended approach to partnership working for Rother and Hastings referred to in this report. 2.2 Statutory Background Administering the Building Regulations is a statutory function and a statutory duty for local authorities. The Building Control teams deals with health & safety issues regarding buildings together with matters covering access to & within buildings and conservation of fuel & power, designed to reduce carbon output from buildings. Building Control also deals with dangerous structures, demolitions, disabled persons issues, access for fire appliances, legal enforcement and other issues contained in the Building Act 1984 and other allied legalisation. Local authority building control services as part of the Building Regulations application service are empowered to charge a fee for work all as described in the Building (Prescribed Fees) Regulations 2010. The income derived shall not be less or more than costs incurred in performing the function under the Principal Regulations and any surplus or deficit should be carried forward year on year.

5

3. Accounts and Finance A separate Building Control Partnership Budget should be created so as to demonstrate clarity and transparency to both councils and our auditors.

RDC and HBC 2010/11 Combined

Budget

Total Cost Proposed

Partnership BUILDING CONTROL SERVICES £ £ Expenditure

Employees 665,220 473,868 Transport Expenses 19,380 8,356 Supplies and Services 24,750 24,750

Operating Expenditure 709,350 506,974 Less Income:

Fees & Charges -596,800 -465,000 Net Operating Cost / (Surplus) 112,550 41,974

Support Services - Administrative Buildings 120,830 120,830 Other 76,970 76,970

Net Cost 310,350 239,774 Management Fee HBC 170,000 Net Saving to Hastings based on 2010/11 revised budget 25,120

3.1 Financial reporting arrangements Financial reporting arrangements would be laid out in the Partnership Agreement.

4. Personnel and HR Issues It is important to understand the implications for staff without whose support partnership working would be much more difficult. From the outset it is acknowledged that working in new ways can be unsettling, that significant differences in pay and conditions can cause unrest and should be harmonised wherever possible and that staff require the reassurance that, as a minimum, they would not be any “worse off” as a result of working in a Partnership.

6

4.1. Employment of staff Existing Hastings staff to be transferred (by TUPE) to Rother District Council. HBC Building Control Manager has agreement in principle with HBC to take flexible retirement, being downgraded to a Surveyor post with hours reduced to 0.5FTE, immediately before the Partnership is formed.

4.2. Harmonisation of pay and conditions There are differences in pay between the Building Control Surveyors and in the terms and conditions of employment between Rother and Hastings, the main differences being arrangements for; out of hour’s payments; lease car scheme and the operation of flexi time/flexible working arrangements. Under TUPE, Hastings staff will retain their current employment rights and consequently there will remain some differences in pay and conditions.

4.3. Training and Development requirements Training and development will be derived from the annual staff appraisals process already in operation at Rother. The current Building Control Training Plan in Rother will be extended to the new members of staff.

4.4. Union and staff consultation It is essential that Staff and Unison are consulted and given the opportunity to shape the partnership. Job evaluations under HAY yet to be undertaken.

5. Management Arrangements and Structure of the Team

5.1. Operational / day-to-day management Management of the partnership will be provided by the current Manager of Rother’s Building Control team who will have the authority to make all the usual day-to-day operational decisions but would be answerable to the Resources Overview & Scrutiny Committee.

5.2. Strategic management Performance of the Partnership is to be subject to scrutiny by the Improvement and Resources Overview and Scrutiny Committee.

8

The partnership would therefore constitute; 1 BCM 1 SBCS 6.6 Building Control Surveyor posts; 2 Admin/Tech This structure would delete the following posts:

• 1 BCM - Hastings • 1 BCS - Hastings • 2 BCS – Rother • 0.5 Admin - Rother

5.4 Workload Excluding the Building Control Manager there will be 7.6 Surveyors.

Total number of

applications Surveyors Applications per surveyor

Rother 2007/08 1122 7 160 Rother 2008/09 979 6 163 Rother 2009/10 862 5 172

Hastings 2007/08 599 3 200 Hastings 2008/09 469 4 117 Hastings 2009/10 400 4 100 Average combined 3 yrs 1477 10 148 Average combined 2 yrs 1356 8 170 Partnership 1356 7.6 178 7.6 Surveyors = 178/BCS. The guidance recommendation provided by the District Surveyors Association is 145 applications per Surveyor each year. Within the first 5yrs of the Partnership several Surveyors will be eligible for retirement and this will provide further opportunities to re-set the team.

6. SERVICE STANDARDS AND DELIVERY Wherever possible it is important that communities and customers in both local authority areas receive a high quality service. As well as addressing issues of equity, achieving this level of consistency is in the best interests of management and officer efficiency and for ensuring harmonisation of practice and culture.

9

6.1. Comparison of services provided The following table sets out the services currently provided in Rother and Hastings. Upon formation of the Partnership every effort will be made to ensure, wherever possible, the same service and the same level of service are offered across both areas.

Existing provision Functions Rother Hastings

Statutory services open to competition

Building Regulation application processing, plan examination and site inspections

� �

Statutory services not open to competition

Building Regulation enforcement

� �

Administering Initial Notices � � Dangerous structure services

� �

Demolitions � � Applications for relaxing or dispensing with Building Regulations

� �

Regularisation applications � � Cavity wall insulation applications

� �

Administer FENSA data � � Approved Person Register / administration of AI regulations

� �

Ancillary Services Providing BC information for Local Land Charge search enquiries

� �

Licensing inspections X X Provision of general advice on building matters

� �

Pre-submission Building Regulations advice

� �

Conditions and site check service for Development Control

X �

Access Officer for the disabled

� �

Energy Rating Service X X Liaising with Fire Service / Officer

� �

Party Wall Act: Third Party Nomination

X X

Member of the LABC � �

10

Existing provision Functions Rother Hastings

Partner Authority Scheme Service Features

• ISO 9000 Quality Assurance registration

X X

• Investor in People � �

• Charter Mark X X

Computerised application system

OCELLA ACOLAID

6.2. Recommended service standards To ensure customers receive a high quality service, an over-arching set of service standards is required. Best of both LAs performance indicators and targets will be adopted by the Partnership. A table containing the recommended service standards for the first year of the Partnership is contained in Appendix B. Service standards should be reviewed and agreed on at least an annual basis, and sooner should circumstances dictate, be specified in the Partnership’s business plan and form the basis for marketing the service.

6.3. Location of the service The Partnership team would be operated from RDC offices within Bexhill, because it had been conceded by HBC that RDC could host the service and that space could be found.

6.4. Ensuring a local presence in Hastings It is important that officers are available at the Hastings offices should the customer require or request it. The Partnership team would need occasional access to meeting room/s in HBC area, preferably in Aquila House, so that surveyors can meet with customers, sometimes in conjunction with planning officers. With the office base being moved from Hastings town centre, and the route including Bexhill Road, flexible-working (starting and/or finishing work on site, and variable start/finish/lunch times) would be essential to avoid inefficiencies in travelling. Rother held one of its regular Planning Agents Forum in Nov ’10 where discussion was had on this proposal and the response was generally in favour with a little concern about availability and accessibility – results shown in Appendix D.

11

6.5. Maintaining reciprocal links with other services As the links already in place at Rother will not alter, joint operation of the service from a central location in Rother means consideration must be given to maintaining effective links with other Council services located in Hastings. This not only concerns links from building control to other services but also links from other services to building control. Primarily those services are: Development Control, Planning Enforcement and Local Land Charges. In addition, it is important that Hastings residents have easy access to building control information where that information should be publicly available.

6.6 Links to and from Development Control HBC currently fulfil a condition monitoring and enforcement type role for development control that is not provided by Rother building control officers. Should it be agreed that this service be offered to Rother’s development control team appropriate links would have to be put in place. This would require for building control to check development control approved plans for comparison when work commences. Development Control will request additional site checks as appropriate. It is important to be aware that this would constitute an additional service to the Rother development control team and would be chargeable. This would not need to be provided from day one of the Partnership. RDC and HBC send a weekly (electronic) notice of all building applications received, including Initial Notices and demolition notices to enable Development Control to undertake permitted development checks on applications received for which no planning application had been received.

6.7 Links to and from Planning Enforcement On a case by case basis, where enforcement action is taken, HBC Building Control and HBC Planning Enforcement liaise towards more efficient and effective working. Case officers will check with the other team to ascertain whether that team need to be involved, and if they are, further liaison will ensue towards more effective working. As confidential information is involved, face-to-face meetings will often be necessary. HBC Planning Enforcement assists HBC Building Control in preparation of legal documents, serving of formal notices, giving of witness statements, and conducting recorded interviews. Both HBC and RDC Building Control teams provide weekly lists of commencements to Planning Enforcement. These services would be maintained.

6.8 Links to and from Land Charges HBC Building Control uses Acolaid to record case data. Every case is linked to a LPG unique property which is maintained in the Acolaid LPG module.

12

7. INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY The smooth operation of the partnership, including the ability for officers to work across boundaries, is dependent upon officers having easy access to Hastings and Rother related data. This could be achieved in a number of ways, including; maintaining two different systems (Ocella and Accolade) and training officers in both, moving to a third system or migrating to one or other system. On balance both systems should be run separately as both service providers seem to be quite ‘keen’ to continue to have their system part of the Partnership, resulting in the potential of keeping costs down rather than trying to merge the data in relation to licences and maintaining communication with the respective partners within each LA; training could be kept to minimum as all staff would know at least one system and therefore disruption to a ‘normal service’ would be less likely. It would also be easier to revert back should the partnership fail. The intention however, is that both teams and IT could compare the systems with a view to merging ‘down the road’ with monies obtained directly from the fees taken in for the BC function as allowed in the fee regulations 2010. Using Terminal Services would enable remote access to either system whilst ensuring both LAs also have access to the same data. It is understood that HBC are reviewing their computer systems and possibly their provider and therefore consideration of using OCELLA by both LAs would only enhance this partnership and potential facilitate further opportunities for both Councils to work together in this and other areas of work.

8. LEGAL Rother’s Legal Department to draw up a draft Partnership Agreement including a constitution and terms of reference for discussion. Any legal agreement formally establishing the Partnership will cover the points discussed in this paper including the following: 8.1 Draft Heads of Terms:- (subject to amendments)

• Parties • Powers • Authority • Delegation of functions • Non-delegable duties • Terms of Arrangements • Constitutional Arrangements • Management Arrangements and Reporting Arrangements • Business Plan • Marketing

13

• Accommodation and Services • Emergency Services and Civil Contingencies • Staff and staff transfer Terms and Conditions • Equipment and Vehicles and ownership/maintenance of

office/operational equipment • IT systems, Use, Misuse, Licenses, Compatibility, Information

transfer and sharing • Assignment and Novation of contracts • Financial arrangements for income, expenditure,

responsibility/sharing of surpluses and deficits, Residual costs, Billing, Accounting and financial reporting, payments and receipts.

• Information handling, Data protection, Freedom of information • Host Authority responsibilities for support services and procurement • Insurance • Indemnities • Liabilities before and after the Agreement • Supply of statistical information • Service Standards • Intellectual Property • Complaint Handling, Local Government Ombudsman, MPs • Appeals • Issue of Notices • Legal Proceedings In Pursuit Of The Functions • Defence Of Legal Proceedings • Indemnities And Compensation • Works In Default • Recovery Of Expenses And Charges On Property • Liabilities, Suing And Being Sued, Insurance • Review of fees and charges and of the working of the Agreement • Variation • Termination And Extension (including notice of withdrawal) • Dispute Resolution • Administrative Provisions e.g. notices

Schedules and appendices

1. List of functions 2. Initial business plan 3. Details of accommodation and licences 4. List of services 5. List of transferring staff

14

6. Terms and conditions of employment 7. List of transferring equipment 8. List of IT equipment 9. List of contracts to be assigned and novated 10. Service level agreement

15

APPENDIX A SERVICES TO BE PROVIDED BY THE PARTNERSHIP FEE-EARNING WORK

• Building Regulations o Application processing

� Full Plans applications � Building Notices � Regularisation applications � Reversion applications � Partner authority Scheme applications

o Plan checking o Site Inspection o Structural checking in connection with Building Regulations

Applications o Application enquiries o Marketing and Promotion activities for fee earning work

NON FEE-EARNING WORK

• Approved Inspector Notices o Dealing with Initial notices from Approved Inspectors o Dealing with Final notices from Approved Inspectors o Dealing with correspondence from Approved Inspectors

• Competent Persons Scheme Notices • Applications for Relaxation or Dispensation • Disabled fee-exempt applications • Building Regulation enforcement work

o Unauthorised work (excluding regularisation applications) o S32 Building Act notices of no effect of plans o Serving enforcement notices to rectify or expose work o Legal action including attendance at court o Other relevant sections of the Building Act 1984

• Dealing with Civil Emergencies • Dealing with Dangerous structures • Dealing with Demolition Notices • S71/72 Building Act - Means of escape • Providing general advice and research work • Pre-submission advice • Marketing and Promotion of Building Control in general • Access Officer work

16

• Compiling returns and statistics • Dealing with Insurance claims • Corporate activities

RE-CHARGEABLE WORK FOR OTHER IN-HOUSE SERVICES

• Planning Liaison o Site checks o Setting out surveys o Consultations

• Land Charge Search questions and research • Housing enquiries • Environmental health enquiries • Enhanced Building Control work for RDC/HBC Schemes

17

APPENDIX B

Service Standards & Performance Indicators These tables set out the indicators and service standards current in place in Hastings and Rother. Rother’s indicators and standards will be adopted for the Partnership. Hastings’s current customer promises / Service Level Agreement

Description Carry out same day site visits when notified before 10.00 am Registered applications within 2 working days Check Full Plans applications within two working weeks of days of deposit Inspect within a one-hour timeframe where a timed inspection is requested Investigate reports of dangerous structures within one working day of receipt Issue completion certificates in every case where we are satisfied with the work ROTHER Current Performance Indicators Description To carry out same day site visits when notified before 10.00 am Registered applications within 2 working days Checking 95% of plans within 15 working days of deposit Issuing all decisions within statutory timescales. Respond to dangerous structures within 1 working day of receipt Issuing completion certificates within 5 days of completion inspection Performance indicators for the Partnership Description Carry out same day site visits when notified before 10.00 am Register applications within 2 working days Check 85% of Full Plans applications within 15 working days of deposit Issue all decisions within statutory timescales. Inspect within a one-hour timeframe where a timed inspection is requested Investigate reports of dangerous structures within one working day of receipt Issue completion certificates in every case where we are satisfied with the work

18

1 Appendix C

Risks

Risk How the risk will be managed Partnership failure: Outside forces could precipitate failure or the Partnership could be terminated by one or other partner authority.

The legal agreement will include a statement or “dissolution clause” to protect the interests of both Partners and set out the arrangements for returning the Building Control function to each authority upon termination of the Partnership.

Loss of council control: Working in partnership requires co-operation and compromise by both parties.

Although unequal in size, each Partner will have equal influence concerning the development and strategic management of the Building Control function. Day-to-day management responsibility will be devolved to the Building Control Manager who will report to the Improvement and Resources Overview & Scrutiny Committee on a regular basis.

HBC left with no staff following TUPE transfer: It is recommended that existing HBC staff be transferred to RDC who will provide the Personnel function on behalf of the Partnership. This only becomes a risk (to HBC) should the Partnership be dissolved.

Upon dissolution of the Partnership, staff will have to return to their respective authorities, to whom the Building Control function will be returned. This would take the form of a TUPE transfer of staff from RDC to HBC.

Staff dissatisfaction: The operation of the Partnership would be more difficult without the co-operation of staff.

While change is unsettling, every effort has been made to involve staff, address their concerns and ensure – as a minimum – no one is disadvantaged by working in this way, or their terms and conditions worsened, which does mean that some of the HBC staff will be better paid than their RDC counterparts.

Savings not realised / increased costs The performance of the Partnership will be subject to scrutiny by the Improvement and Resources Overview & Scrutiny Committee. Should the Partnership not perform to acceptable levels the legal agreement will provide for dissolution of the Partnership by either party subject to a notice period.

Reduction of level of service to Hastings customers

The Partnership will operate to the same agreed set of service standards and will operate in such a way to ensure that customers of the Building Control team from either area receive an equal quality of service. Customer feedback will inform the future operation of the Partnership addressing any concerns as necessary.

Down turn in the construction industry: The buoyancy of the construction industry has a direct impact on the Building Control service.

There has been a “slowing down” in the last two years, but the teams have already reduced numbers of staff accordingly. Any subsequent changes in workload can be accommodated in the same ways as they would if the Partnership were not formed, including providing services for other depts. of each Council.

Unequal benefits: Where one Partner benefits at the expense of the other.

The guiding principle of the Partnership is that no Partner authority should be “worse off” as a result of working in Partnership. The basis for contributing towards costs and distributing surpluses will be agreed and monitored thereafter. Any adjustments will be agreed to ensure the benefits remain equal.

19

Benefits Benefit Explanation Reduced costs Re-locating and sharing the cost of managing and operating the

Partnership will reduce the cost of providing a Building Control function. It is anticipated that the real benefits, in terms of cost savings, will accrue in subsequent years, once the Partnership has had sufficient time to establish itself.

Improved competitiveness

A bigger, more marketable and more robust local authority Building Control unit with a more pro-active approach to promotion will be better placed to respond to and “win back” lucrative work currently being lost to the private sector.

Improved access provision

Advising on access related issues is a growing area of work, the burden of which traditionally falls on the Building Control Manager reducing his ability to manage the team and deal with operational issues. Working in Partnership provides the opportunity to allocate the Access Officer role to the Senior Building Control Surveyor to address these issues that would otherwise be more costly for either Partner to provide.

Increased staff opportunities

Bringing together the diverse areas of Hastings and Rother to form a bigger team servicing both areas offers the opportunity for officers to gain broader professional experience and benefit from the potential to advance their careers further than they would otherwise be able to be remaining employed within smaller individual teams. It is anticipated that this would also be a benefit in terms of attracting new staff and retaining existing staff. The opportunities would also extend to the support functions (e.g. Administration).

Improved management The proposed Partnership would bring more management responsibilities for the Building Control Manager. While this would be a challenge it would also allow him to make better use of his skills and experience by unburdening him of time-consuming access related duties. The relative cost to each Partner would be reduced because the cost would be shared.

Bigger, more robust team

Smaller teams are more susceptible to fluctuations in workloads, absence and staff turnover. Forming a bigger team reduces the relative impact of these factors on those remaining officers, makes it less dependent on the support of consultants and other in-house service providers as well as making it more marketable.

More proactive marketing

Since the introduction of private competition for Building Control work, local authority Building Control teams cannot be sure of their position in the market place. One of the ways they need to respond to this relatively new threat is to market their services more aggressively, which an enlarged team with support and training from LABC can undertake more readily.

20

Appendix D

Feedback from Agents Forum – 10 November 2010

As part of the above event agents where formed into groups and asked a number of questions around ‘Partnership Proposal for RDC to operate the Building Control service of Hastings Borough Council’. 1 – What do you think are the potential advantages/disadvantages for the partnership in providing you with the level of service you are already receiving, assuming the Partnership is based in Bexhill?

• ‘boundary’ removed between 2 LAs and therefore more consistent approach/similar ideas on construction methods.

• Flexibility increased/better cover • Easier parking • Saving in costs • Joint meetings with DC & BC

• Travel time to Hastings • Will it be efficient? • ‘Local’ Hastings advice? Walk in off street advice

2- How do you think agents and Building Control can increase the awareness of customers about the building control process/function?

• Onus is on agents • Use RDC website – links to other sites – Party Wall • Leaflets to local solicitors about the role of BC • Ensure DC mention BC even if DC not required • Information about BN/FP. • Letters with Planning conditions

3 - What other services do you think the partnership could provide that would give ‘added value’ to you and your clients?

• Seminars good – helps keep agents aware of the changes • Insurance inspections rather than LABC NHW as well? • Flexibility in timing of site visits

21

4 - RDC seminars mostly feature products suppliers and are therefore free of charge to you, but several recently have been done using speakers from LABC, at a small charge to you. Are you happy with the present mix? Do you have any particular issues that you would like to be covered by the RDC seminars? Is there any way in which we can improve the seminars?

• Worth it • Paying is OK • Brillant • Later in day – cakes instead of lunch • Another day as Mondays being first working day of week are busy.

5 Have you any comments/issues about the current service you receive from the Hastings or Rother Building Control Teams that you think we should be aware of?

• RDC – thorough • Definitely electronic subs • Pay electronically? • Good to have officer doing approval, not on site – however not good for career. • Link to the Ads on Planning Portal from RDC pages? • Very good • Highlight Party Wall issues.

rother and hastings building control draft partnership ... · 2 contents 1. summary 2. background...

Documents