Agenda item
Request for Authority to Tender for the Provision of Partnership Building Control Services
- Meeting of Cabinet, Tuesday, 1st September 2015 6.00 p.m. (Item 26.)
- View the background to item 26.
(Cabinet Member with Special Responsibility Councillor Hanson)
Report of Chief Officer (Regeneration & Planning)
Minutes:
(Cabinet Member with Special Responsibility Councillor Hanson)
Cabinet received a report from the Chief Officer (Regeneration & Planning) which sought Cabinet approval to tender for the provision of Building Control Services.
The options, options analysis, including risk assessment and officer preferred option, were set out in the report as follows:
|
|
Option 1: To maintain and resource the Building Control Service in-house |
Option 2: To enter into formal negotiations with another local authority to provide Building Control services |
Option 3: To tender the opportunity for another party to assist the council in providing its Building Control services |
|
Advantages |
None, other than fitting in part with the council’s ethos of being an ensuring council (e.g. retaining core capacity, but conflicts with some aspects such as VFM). |
This would fit well with the council’s ethics as an ensuring council and potentially keep the work within the local government family. |
Still fits with council’s ethos – commissioning or procuring services in the most appropriate manner, where retaining in-house capacity is not a viable option.
Private sector organisations have more capacity for marketing services and are now more likely to attract new business.
May lead to reduced costs overall. |
|
Disadvantages |
The Council cannot currently provide a viable Building Control service without further investment in staff resources resulting in a greater draw on the revenue budget as there is no guarantee that this can be recouped through an increase in fee earning income – so option would not deliver VFM and so may not meet the council’s statutory obligations. |
All local authorities are facing severe budget restraints in the current environment which can affect business plans and the ability to adequately resource service provision. |
Ideally, the council may prefer to retain this business within the local government family and this option would be seen as partially outsourcing this activity, so implementation would need carefully managing and communicating. |
|
Risks |
The further extension of the deficit in the Building Control Trading Account. Failure to meet statutory obligations for trading position and for securing VFM / continuous improvement.
|
Shared service being unable to secure more business from the Lancaster area and continuing losses in the Building control Trading Account.
Highly unlikely that another Local Authority will be willing to undertake a shared service provision due to Lancaster’s geographical boundary. |
The cost of using a private sector provider may be higher than directly employing officers and unable to directly compete with established and emerging providers who are more flexible in responding to market forces. |
The officer preference is Option 3. The Council must take steps to continue providing this service without continuing to build the deficit in its own trading account. To do this the best alternative is to achieve economies of scale and changes in market perception by working with another party. Members have expressed the preference to achieve efficiencies by working with other local authorities as part of their ethical role as an Ensuring Council. However, despite best efforts and extensive trials no other local authority nearby has been prepared to enter into a shared service arrangement.
The only other viable alternative for the City Council, which must by statute provide a service, is to now advertise widely for a partner organisation to assist with provision of these services. The aim will be to reduce to a basic cost (subject to increases for inflation) for the City Council’s statutory role and provide fee earning services from a partner at cost to the service user. Such an approach may not build business share back towards previous levels, but it will enable the council to comply with statutory requirements to provide a service at cost to those who require it from the City Council and to break even with the Trading Account.
Councillor Hanson proposed, seconded by Councillor Clifford:-
“That the recommendations, as set out in the report, be approved.”
Councillors then voted:-
Resolved unanimously:
(2) That Cabinet agrees that the City Council secure external services to assist with the provision of its Building Control services going forward and authorises the Chief Officer (Regeneration and Planning) and the Chief Officer (Resources) to tender the opportunity for those services to be provided at minimum practical costs to the council with the fee earning element to be provided at cost to the service user.
Officers responsible for effecting the decision:
Chief Officer (Regeneration & Planning
Chief Officer (Resources)
Reasons for making the decision:
The decision will enable the Council to maintain and resource its statutory Building Control duties.
Supporting documents:
-
Request for Authority to Tender fo the Provision of Partnership Building Control Services, item 26.
PDF 229 KB - Restricted enclosure View the reasons why document 26./2 is restricted