Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors M J C Burgess (Ashford Borough Council), B Rogers (Thanet District Council), R T Taylor (Ashford Borough Council) and M Vye (Kent County Council).

To note appointment of Substitute Members in accordance with the agreed procedure.

It was noted that in accordance with the Operating Arrangements, Councillor M J Roberts had been appointed as substitute for Councillor B Rogers.

To confirm the attached Minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 19 October 2009.

The Minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 19 October 2009 were approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

None

There were no items for consideration.

In accordance with Paragraph 7.1 of the Operating Arrangements any Member of the Committee may require that an item be placed for consideration on the agenda of the next available meeting.

         There are no items for consideration.

There were no items for consideration.

To agree the appointment of three Members of Ashford Borough Council as non?voting co-opted members for the municipal year 2009/10.

The Committee was advised that three representatives from Ashford Borough Council had been co-opted as non-voting members in respect of items relating to the Shared Housing Service during the previous municipal year.  The reason for this     co-option was the participation by Ashford Borough Council in the shared housing service project.

              RESOLVED:                     That Councillors M J Burgess, R F Packham and R T Taylor of Ashford Borough Council be co-opted for the municipal year 2009/10 as non-voting members of the committee in respect of the Housing Shared Services Project only.

To receive an update from the Housing Shared Services Project Group.

              The Director of Community Services (Canterbury City Council) and Mr C Dallison (HQN Associate Member) of the Housing Shared Service Project Team were present at the meeting to update the Committee on the progress made since the last report to the committee in December 2008.  

              The partner members for the Housing Shared Service were Ashford Borough Council, Canterbury City Council, Dover District Council, Shepway District Council and Thanet District Council.  Kent County Council was not a partner as it had no responsibility for housing services.

              (a)      Purpose

              The intention in developing a Housing Shared Service was to improve the level of service while achieving greater efficiencies and savings through replacing five services with a single service.  

              (b)      Options Review

              The project team had previously identified four options for the Housing Shared Service.  These were:

              ·         To host the service by one authority;

              ·         To develop a joint procurement approach;

              ·         To develop a shared services vehicle; and

              ·         To develop a shared services vehicle with some or all services.

              The East Kent (Joint Arrangements) Committee in December 2008 had agreed that further work on the principle of a housing shared service vehicle would be undertaken.

              (c)      Work to Date

              An officer project team was established to consider the implications of developing a Housing Shared Service.  As part of this work was undertaken to identify which activities should form part of the shared service and develop financial modelling for the impact of the a shared service on each authority's HRA and General Fund.  In addition, consideration was given to what the impact of a shared housing service would be on those services that remained within the control of each authority.

              (d)      Challenges

              The existing five housing services employed 300 members of staff in five locations and each used a different housing IT system.  In order to identify areas of potential economy and diseconomy of scale, it was necessary for the project team to benchmark services across each authority to enable the identification of the same activities even if undertaken in a different way.

              In developing a shared service it was critical to give consideration to the timing, cost and technical aspects of the service.

              Mr C Dallison informed the Committee that savings of 10% or greater on the HRA direct costs were realistically achievable although it was acknowledged that the support service savings would be more difficult to identify as activities were structured in different ways in each authority.  There would also be savings achieved for the Housing Shared Service as a consequence of the establishment of the East Kent Human Resources Partnership.

              (e)      Legal and Governance

              It was proposed that a Shared Service Vehicle (SSV) would be developed to manage the Housing Shared Service.  The SSV would be a non-profit company limited by guarantee that would be controlled by the Councils through a management agreement that would set the parameters within which the Board of Directors would operate. 

              The Board of Directors would consist of 15 members, composed of five Councillors, five tenant representatives  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.