Appendix 1
Building Control - Joint Working Initiative Option Appraisal
Option 1 - Do nothing.
1.The strengths of this approach are that no change is required and staff and many customers are comfortable with the present arrangements.
2.The weaknesses include that this approach does not fulfil the national agenda for partnership working, reduces opportunities to make financial savings, stifles development opportunities and does not meet staff retention and development requirements. There are fewer opportunities with this option.
3.The threats include: increased loss of work to private sector; poor staff retention; reduced performance; and, formation of partnerships by others impact on the service.
Option 2 - Create a service based within the two authorities but having a shared management structure;
1.Option 2 would allow the creation of an overarching senior management structure i.e. a joint Building Control Manager and two senior officers, responsible for the provision of a building control service across the two authorities. All three posts would be appointed from existing senior staff within the two building control services and would reside with their employing authority. The joint Building Control Manager post would be jointly funded with a 50% recharge of salary on-costs and travel costs to the partner authority. All other staff would remain in their existing employment locations. However, staff would be expected to work with some flexibility with the possibility of undertaking some work in the other authority when pressures arise.
2.The strengths of this approach include that it would be relatively speedy to implement, addresses a number of the reasons for a joint approach, has been successful elsewhere, avoids procurement problems, creates a cross boundary service with joint responsibility and ownership, provides the economies of scale necessary to maintain and develop the service and maintains a local service.
3.The weaknesses include that it lacks the benefits of a long-term solution (Option 3) and should only be perceived as being an interim solution.
4.This option would provide the opportunity to put in place a management team to develop the longer-term future of the building control service.
5.Threats include the failure of this option to achieve the necessary efficiencies, which might jeopardise the longer-term ambitions of joint working. Alternatively, if it works well there is the danger that the impetus to move further forward is lost.
Option 3 - Complete amalgamation with one authority leading.
1.The ongoing discussions between the two authorities suggest that Option 3, complete amalgamation with one authority leading as the host, would best meet both Councils’ objectives. The impact of this solution would be to create a building control service with a separate identity, managed by a Board or other management arrangement, with representatives from both authorities. However, this solution will take time to implement and a number of critical issues would need to be addressed in the business plan, these include:
- a decision on the host authority;
- the location of the new entity;
- staffing and other HR issues;
- joint budget and financial support matters;
- IT and data storage;
- data sharing protocols
- service level agreements;
- branding of the new business
2.This option would create a building control service with a separate identity for Middlesbrough and Redcar and Cleveland. One authority would be the host authority and all employees from the non host authority would TUPE to the host authority. The management structure would mirror that in option 2. The amalgamated service would receive budgets from each local authority. There is a potential that after a first year, budget contributions would reduce, in anticipation of savings in administration costs.
3.The strengths are that it demonstrates longer-term commitment, the merged body would own its actions and future, TUPE staff would form part of a single service, there is potential for substantial efficiencies, some savings and it would remain a local service.
4.It has to be accepted that this is a long-term solution that will take time to agree and create.
5.Opportunities include the ability to establish a clear identity, which will assist with marketing, skills development etc the combined service would have the potential to expand if other authorities wished to participate.
6.Threats include the possible loss of staff that are not comfortable with the new business.
Option 4 - Create an arms length company to provide the service for both authorities,
1.The strengths of this option include all the strengths of Options 2 and 3 but it also has the potential for a wider range of activities to underwrite the basic service, and would be able to expand if other authorities joined.
2.The weaknesses are that it would be at a greater risk from market forces, it may need more set up funding if it unproven.
3.The opportunities include those for Options 2 and 3 but it would have enhanced opportunities to develop business that is not normally linked to building control.
4.The threats are that the business fails to create new income streams and the local authorities could be left without a building control service, thereby not meeting their statutory responsibilities.
Option 5 - Outsource the function (minus enforcement) to the private sector.
1.The strengths of this approach include that it removes the responsibility for providing the support services from the local authorities, and the Councils’ role would be limited to monitoring the contractor. It might be possible to make savings relating to accommodation and overheads.
2.The weaknesses are that it removes the business from Council control, may adversely impact upon the councils’ reputations and may weaken enforcement activities. The procurement process is likely to be complicated and may not achieve the desired result and the preferred supplier may not have local knowledge. Business opportunities would be lost to the Council though the Council would still be required to maintain public access registers.
3.The only real opportunity with this option is a greater potential financial saving but only with a reduced level of service.
4.The threats are that should the contractor withdraw or fail there would be no residual skills within the Council, contact with other Council activities such as Development Control would be lost and Council control would be reduced.
1