|
The purpose of this document is to allow the Mid Kent Improvement
Partnership Board to take a decision as to whether to progress a shared
service for the service described below and scoped by MKIP. The MKIP Board
is not a formal decision making body and each authority that is to join the
shared service will need to take a formal decision to form a shared service.
The successful delivery of shared services through MKIP has
established shared services as a viable means of delivering services for all
partners. As a result this is a high level, rather than detailed, Business
Case on which the Board will consider whether to proceed. Once approved the
details of the business case and shared service will be established,
developed throughout the life of the project and delivered. Therefore this
document is a living document and will evolve throughout the project subject
to project controls.
The documents will be monitored and amended under the ownership of
the Project Sponsor throughout the project. Updates on the documents will be
provided to the Board on a quarterly basis and any variations beyond the
final limits agreed in this document will need to be approved by the MKIP
Board.
|
|
The MKIP Board have given the go ahead to look at sharing planning
support. The steer from the Board has been clear that planning support is to
be looked at distinct from planning (development management and policy) as
this is an area that members wish to retain complete local discretion over.
Looking at planning support will have an inevitable indirect impact
on the whole of planning. It would not be feasible to share planning support
and deliver improvements without this being the case. Each partner will
maintain discretion on managing the indirect impacts on planning.
The majority of planning support work can be classified as back
office functions and is administrative and process based in nature. It has
been demonstrated nationally and through MKIP that those are exactly the
kinds of activities that lend themselves to sharing, and in doing so, to
delivering efficiency savings. There are other examples that those leading
the change will be expected to draw from.
There are examples of sharing planning functions nationally and these
will be looked at as the design and implementation of a planning support
shared service progresses. For example, Suffolk Coastal and Waveney agreed
to share the whole of planning, including support functions, in January 2012
and this may provide some suitable learning points for MKIP.
MKIP has internal examples of successful sharing of administrative,
process based, functions. The key example to draw from is revenues and
benefits which handles an estimated 70,000 transactions across two
authorities. Numerous lessons have been learned and support the view that
sharing planning support is feasible, chief among these being that ICT difficulties
can be overcome and support shared service delivery which in the case of
revenues and benefits took five months. In drawing comparisons between planning
support and revenues and benefits it is also important to understand the
practical differences between the two services.
The MKIP ICT service is in the process of being implemented and this
would be the first shared service to be implemented with joint ICT to support
the process making overcoming technology difficulties easier. It is through
the MKIP ICT partnership and in support of its business strategy that the procurement
of joined up ICT systems for planning (as a whole) and environmental health
will be looked at. This will be done independently of any shared service
decision as it is expected to stand up on its own business case, but will
clearly form a crucial element of delivering a shared service (see
assumptions below).
Some practical considerations remain in delivering a shared service.
For example the need and use of physical documents by planning officers and
how if a single site for a shared service is used this need can be met. This
is not considered to be insurmountable as potential solutions exist including
the options of a courier between sites, upgrading the ICT at each site to
enable the handling of electronic documents and providing facilities for
planners to produce large scale plans as required.
|
|
1. Efficiencies
– Delivery of significant savings through economies of scale, sharing systems
and processes and carrying out common work once.
2. Quality
– Provision of reliable, accurate and flexible support to the Mid-Kent
planning teams in order to enable them to meet their targets.
3. Resilience
- Robust cover and sharing of specialisms to reduce the impact of absences
and spikes in workload on service quality and provide opportunities for staff
to learn and develop.
4. Culture
- Creation of a service where the culture is pro-active in serving the
Mid-Kent public as a whole and for the benefit of all Mid-Kent planning
authorities.
|
|
1.
3 sites with 1 manager
See Appendix A
for structure (includes 2 options, 1a. and 1b.)
Option 1a –
Recommended for Critical Success Factor assessment
|
Single Manager
|
A key lesson learned by
MKIP through delivery of all of its previous shared services is the need
for an individual with the drive and ability to bring a shared service
together and take it forwards.
A key principle of shared
services is the reduction of common work (i.e. the same activity being
performed at more than one authority) and this has a particular impact on management.
Another key element of
shared services is bringing best practice, policies and processes together;
having a single manager more readily enables this to happen.
Working across three
sites would represent a challenge to the manager post, particularly in
creating a single culture across the team and initially there will be a
significant requirement on the manager to be present at Swale whilst
electronic working is fully introduced. This will need to be carefully
managed to deliver an equal service across all three partners.
|
|
Technical teams at each
site
|
Technical teams within
this model refers to planning support staff who carry out all functions
except land charges and scanning.
A team will be required
at each site to provide direct support to their own planning teams.
The numbers of staff
would be based on delivery of improved ICT systems and processes for each,
but this would impact more at some sites than others. The largest
improvement would demonstrably be at Swale with the introduction of
electronic working and workflow for all planning staff (including planning
officers).
Validation would change
at Maidstone and Swale with the full validation process for non-major
applications coming into planning support and being moved away from officers.
This represents an efficiency as less costly staff would be carrying out
the function. In turn this would free up planning officer resource at
those two authorities for the service to determine how to utilise as this
project does not include planning officers within its scope. The Heads of
Planning have indicated that they support this change and would welcome it,
however, major applications would not be fully validated within the support
team as a ‘cradle to grave’ approach with planning officers would be taken
for majors, again this is fully supported by the Heads of Planning.
Whilst there would be
significant changes driven by new ICT systems and processes at all three
sites redesigning team structures at each site represents a lot of work for
the manager and would need to be done on a continuous basis over a longer
period of time once the service was up and running to drive further
efficiencies. Initially the approach taken in order to improve resilience
within the shared service would be to cross train staff on a variety of
roles so that they can cover absences, rather than have staff specialise.
This would help compensate for the fact that cover between sites would be
harder to achieve under this model though not impossible with staff expected
to cover across sites if required.
Maidstone’s staff numbers
increase under this model due to the increase in validation work in the
team. Planning policy support is also currently carried out from within
the existing Maidstone team and has been excluded from this model. The
Head of Planning at Maidstone has indicated that he would prefer planning
policy to remain part of the team if this is the case then Maidstone’s team
would be required to grow by 1 FTE to accommodate the work. Maidstone’s
team is also currently supported by its corporate support model. The
scanning element of this is considered below, the contact centre support
equates to 0.64FTE and would continue under this model.
|
|
Single land charge team
|
A single land charge team
would be created whether operating at one site or three. This is due to
the increasing drive to digitise land charges and reduce interactions with
customers, particularly on personals searches which are free.
Technology will be
crucial to support this change and electronic searches are already carried
out at Maidstone and Tunbridge Wells which has allowed a reduction in
staffing to take place. The new staffing numbers are based on reducing
staff to match Maidstone’s 1FTE whilst improving resilience through locating
staff at one site.
Analysis of the numbers
of searches demonstrates that the volumes of work supported by appropriate
processes can be accommodated in a team of this size.
Table of land charge
volumes and existing FTE
|
|
Maidstone
|
Swale
|
Tunbridge Wells
|
|
Numbers of
official searches
|
2550
|
1660
|
2161
|
|
Number of personal
searches*
|
796
|
998
|
429
|
|
Total number of
searches
|
3346
|
2650
|
2590
|
|
FTE (Existing)
|
1.0
|
2.64
|
2.0
|
*The aim will be to
reduce the method of dealing with personal searches to avoid contact with
customers and make this element ‘self service’ if possible.
It is important to note
that land charge legislation prevents land charges from making a surplus
over any three year period. Land charge income would therefore be expected
to drop by an equivalent amount to any savings delivered through the
service through a reduction of fees to the customer. As personal searches
are free the cost of dealing with these is not recovered by the council and
they therefore need to be minimised.
|
|
Single scanning team
|
With electronic
documentation and workflow, scanning, and quality of scanning, underpins
the whole process of handling planning applications.
Currently three different
methods of scanning are used across the three authorities – within team
(TWBC), corporate support (MBC) and externally (SBC). The amount of
resource put into this function breaks down as follows:
|
MBC
|
2.4FTE
|
£48k
|
|
SBC
|
(1.4 FTE)
|
£28k*
|
|
TWBC
|
2FTE
|
£40k
|
*Swale receive a
different service level from their external supplier than Maidstone and Tunbridge
Wells receive internally. Swale’s scanning takes place in order to present
information through their website with documents being sent externally with
a five day turn around. Maidstone and Tunbridge Wells work with same day
scanning onto electronic planning files for officers to work from, with the
appropriate information also presented onto the web.
A single team would
increase resilience and ensure that the new processes and technology are
supported appropriately with service levels equivalent to that received by
Maidstone and Tunbridge Wells.
The best method for
delivering the scanning requirements of the service has not been determined
at this stage. Any of the three methods (within service, corporate support
or external) are viable options. The planning support manager leading the
shared service would need to determine the best method based on service
need and cost, but the final solution will need to cost the same as or less
than the estimate used in this business case.
Post would need to be
received on one site in order to support this model as this would allow the
scanning to take place at the earliest point and start the workflow and
processing of applications as early as possible. This could present
difficulties to the operation of three separate teams as they would
currently need to operate from hardcopy documents. This additional
challenge could be addressed to an extent through a courier service and
through liaising with external bodies requiring hardcopies so that work can
be done electronically as far as possible.
|
|
Single ICT systems and
processes
|
Underpinning the shared
service will be the delivery of improved systems and processes. The
staffing numbers used in these models are based on electronic working
throughout planning as well as planning support and it is crucial that a
single ICT system and set of processes are agreed across the three sites.
This will not be an insignificant amount of work and will form the greatest
part of the manager’s workload in delivering the shared service once the
new structures are agreed.
Confidence that these
proposals are deliverable arises from the three authorities already using
three sets of approaches to planning processes, with Maidstone and
Tunbridge Wells using electronic working on a greater scale than Swale.
The estimates are therefore based on the knowledge that operating planning
services in this way is possible.
Culturally, implementing
these changes will be more difficult across three sites with cross training
and support not taking place as organically as if staff were located at one
site. However, cross training and visits can be undertaken to help with
this and to build up a single team ethic.
A clear political steer
has been given that local place shaping and decision making on planning are
not included within these changes and this will be the case with the focus
being on the process driven elements of the service.
Close working with the
MKIP ICT partnership will be crucial throughout the delivery of the shared
service and beyond.
|
Option 1b –
Recommended for Critical Success Factor assessment
|
Scanning function at each
site
|
In order to reduce the
challenge of having planning support teams at different sites from where
post is received (an issue identified above under 1a. Single scanning team)
it would be possible to have 2FTE scanning requirement delivered at each
site.
This would require larger
scanning staff numbers overall than the single site model and would not be
as resilient. However, it would enable post to be received by the scanning
teams on the same site as the planning support staff.
Maidstone’s existing
requirement is for 2.4FTE, however, review work carried out with the
corporate support manager has indicated that as the scanning team at
Maidstone do not receive the post directly this introduces inefficiencies
into the process that if resolved would reduce the FTE requirement. This
lesson is also important when considering the needs of a single scanning
team.
|
2.
1 site with 1 manager – Recommended for Critical Success Factor
assessment
See Appendix B
for structure
|
Single Manager
|
A key lesson learned by
MKIP through delivery of all of its previous shared services is the need
for an individual with the drive and ability to bring a shared service
together and take it forwards.
A key principle of shared
services is the reduction of common work (i.e. the same activity being
performed at more than one authority) and this has a particular impact on
management.
Another key element of
shared services is bringing best practice, policies and processes together;
having a single manager more readily enables this to happen.
|
|
Technical Teams split
into three roles
|
An advantage of bringing
staff together into a single team on a single site is that they can specialise
in areas of the process whilst improving resilience. Heads of Planning
have indicated that they support validation being done by the planning
support team with the exception of major applications which are critical to
the delivery of a quality planning service, have the largest impact on the
local area and represent a large proportion of income. For major applications
the Heads of Planning would prefer a ‘cradle to grave’ approach taken by
the planning officers. This also allows the three authorities to be in a
position to respond to proposals from government that could involve the fee
being lost for applications that are not determined in time further
increasing the importance of determining majors on time.
Technical Team –
Example Functions
·
Amendments
·
Decision Notices
·
Pre-Application
·
TPO
·
High Hedges
·
Enforcement Notices
·
Histories
·
Enforcement Complaints
·
Committee Presentations
·
Invoices
·
Phone calls
Validation –
Example Functions
·
Registering and validating:
·
Minor
·
Other
·
SUBS
·
TREECAS/TPO
·
Licensing
·
Printing Planning Portal Planning Applications
·
Production of Weekly List
Majors
The majors team becomes
worthwhile within a single team due to the joint numbers of majors
received. Individually these are not significant enough to warrant a
specialist team.
|
Majors 2011/12
|
Maidstone
|
Swale
|
Tunbridge Wells
|
|
|
70
|
75
|
23
|
The team would liaise
directly with planning officers handling majors and would carry out some
stages of the validation of those applications though a large part of the
validation would sit with the case officer. The team would also
concentrate on other important and sensitive elements of the planning
service including appeals and s106 monitoring and would cover the rest of
team when required though priority would be given to major applications.
It maybe that the resourcing for this team needs to be flexible and this is
something the Planning Support Manager would need to manage.
|
|
Single Land Charges team
|
A single land charge team
would be created whether operating at one site or three. This is due to
the increasing drive to digitise land charges and reduce interactions with
customers, particularly on personals searches which are free.
Technology will be
crucial to support this change and electronic searches are already carried
out at Maidstone and Tunbridge Wells which has allowed a reduction in
staffing to take place. The new staffing numbers are based on reducing
staff to match Maidstone’s 1FTE whilst improving resilience through
locating staff at one site.
Analysis of the numbers of
searches demonstrates that the volumes of work supported by appropriate
processes can be accommodated in a team of this size.
Table of land charge
volumes and existing FTE
|
|
Maidstone
|
Swale
|
Tunbridge Wells
|
|
Numbers of
official searches
|
2550
|
1660
|
2161
|
|
Number of personal
searches*
|
796
|
998
|
429
|
|
Total number of
searches
|
3346
|
2650
|
2590
|
|
FTE (Existing)
|
1.0
|
2.64
|
2.0
|
*The aim will be to
reduce the method of dealing with personal searches to avoid contact with
customers and make this element ‘self service’ if possible.
It is important to note
that land charge legislation prevents land charges from making a surplus
over any three year period. Land charge income would therefore be expected
to drop by an equivalent amount to any savings delivered through the service
through a reduction of fees to the customer. As personal searches are free
the cost of dealing with these is not recovered by the council and they
therefore need to be minimised.
|
|
Single scanning team
|
With electronic
documentation and workflow, scanning, and quality of scanning, underpins
the whole process of handling planning applications.
Currently three different
methods of scanning are used across the three authorities – within team
(TWBC), corporate support (MBC) and externally (SBC). The amount of
resource put into this function breaks down as follows:
|
MBC
|
2.4FTE
|
£48k
|
|
SBC
|
(1.4FTE)
|
£28k*
|
|
TWBC
|
2FTE
|
£40k
|
*Swale receive a
different service level from their external supplier than Maidstone and
Tunbridge Wells receive internally. Swale’s scanning takes place in order
to present information through their website with documents being sent
externally with a five day turn around. Maidstone and Tunbridge Wells work
with same day scanning onto electronic planning files for officers to work
from, with the appropriate information also presented onto the web.
A single team would
increase resilience and ensure that the new processes and technology are
supported appropriately with service levels equivalent to that received by
Maidstone and Tunbridge Wells.
The best method for
delivering the scanning requirements of the service has not been determined
at this stage. Any of the three methods (within service, corporate support
or external) are viable options. The planning support manager leading the
shared service would need to determine the best method based on service
need and cost, but the final solution will need to cost the same as or less
than the estimate used in this business case.
Post would need to be
received on one site in order to support this model as this would allow the
scanning to take place at the earliest point and start the workflow and
processing of applications as early as possible. The operation of the
planning support team from a single site would work well with this
approach.
|
|
Single ICT systems and
processes
|
Underpinning the shared
service will be the delivery of improved systems and processes. The
staffing numbers used in these models are based on electronic working
throughout planning as well as planning support and it is crucial that a
single ICT system and set of processes are agreed across the three sites.
This will not be an insignificant amount of work and will form the greatest
part of the manager’s workload in delivering the shared service once the
new structures are agreed.
Confidence that these
proposals are deliverable arises from the three authorities already using
three sets of approaches to planning processes, with Maidstone and
Tunbridge Wells using electronic working on a greater scale than Swale.
The estimates are therefore based on the knowledge that operating planning
services in this way is possible.
A one site model would
allow cross training and support to occur organically but this will need to
be supported by a programme of training and support for all staff.
A clear political steer
has been given that local place shaping and decision making on planning are
not included within these changes and this will be the case with the focus
being on the process driven elements of the service.
Close working with the
MKIP ICT partnership will be crucial throughout the delivery of the shared
service and beyond.
|
3.
Start with 3 sites and merge to 1 site over agreed timescale -
Not Recommended to go forward for Critical Success Factor assessment
Structure at April
2014 same as model 1a. Structure at April 2015 same as model 2.
This model has
been considered in order to provide a variation in implementation of the
service for comparison to models 1 and 2. In essence the plan would
be to have a single manager, followed by single land charge and
scanning teams. From April 2014 to April 2015 work would be done to bring planning
support and the wider planning teams up to speed on the new ICT system and
processes and to share best practice. Once each planning
department, with on site support from planning support, have been
brought to the same level a single planning support team would then be
created at one of the authorities to realise further efficiencies.
It is not
recommended that this go forwards for assessment at the disadvantages of
putting staff through two major change processes and delaying the
benefits of model 2 are not outweighed by the only significant benefit of
allowing more time to bring each site up to the same level of systems and processes.
|
Advantages
|
Disadvantages
|
|
Extra time to bring all
authorities up to same level of technology and processes before
implementing full service
|
Staff go through two
major change processes with two sets of risk of redundancy and two sets of
implementation costs
|
|
Initial savings from
three site model delivered
|
Hard to create a single
team culture initially
|
|
Potential for additional
savings when combining to one site arising from Manager having
understanding of each authority’s needs when designing single site service
|
Takes longer to implement
and there is a risk that cultures of each site will become embedded in
shared service prior to one site change.
|
4.
No change (for comparison)
See Appendix C
– structure provided for comparison to new models.
|