HUBS - Policy Commission Blue Paper

PAPER C

POLICY COMMISSION BLUE PAPER

RESPONSIBLE BODY

Policy Commission for Business and Infrastructure

PROJECT NAME

HUBS

REFERENCE NUMBER

E06/06

1. PURPOSE OF ENQUIRY AND PROPOSED OUTCOME

1.1. The purpose of the enquiry is to ascertain the most appropriate way for improving customer service by locating sources of Council information and customer facing processes within the community, in order to provide what may be colloquially known as a “One Stop Shop” where residents can conduct their interface with the Council conveniently and in person.

1.2. The enquiry will also investigate opportunities for servicing home based and mobile Council employees from drop-in or touch-down facilities away from County Hall or their normal place of work and will also investigate the possibilities of co-location with partner organisations including complementing the roles of Town and Parish Councils and Ward Councillors.

1.3. Hubs are defined as premises positioned in strategic locations to serve the Council-related needs of residents and to make the best value for money use of customer-facing Council resources.

1.4. The proposed outcome will be to recommend to the Cabinet the number of Hubs required, the activity to take place in them, partners to be involved and their optimum geographical locations.

1.5. To provide Island residents with co-located customer service centres, including such range of public services as may be required in a particular location. It is anticipated that the co-located public services will include elements of health, education and community security.

2. RECOMMENDATIONS / OPTIONS

2.1. Adopt Option C, ie undertake a pilot scheme based on the opportunity presenting itself around Moa Place, Freshwater.

2.2. A clear customer service delivery strategy needs to be defined before any other Hub opportunities can be fully assessed.

2.3. Review the findings of the (recently appointed) external property partner undertaking the joint strategic property review with the PCT and the Police partners, and relate this to the Hubs agenda with respect to co-location, service delivery, and the delivery of value for money accommodation.

2.4. Review the various partners’ service delivery requirements to tease out how these will impact upon physical location and potential co-location.

2.5. Revisit the flexible working policy for Isle of Wight Council, having first reviewed working practices throughout all service areas to ascertain those areas with the highest potential for mobile working and home working.

This body of work and the above recommendations / options were agreed and accepted by the Members of the Policy Commission for Economy, Tourism, Regeneration and Transport on .

Cllr J Fitzgerald-Bond

Commissioner

3. BACKGROUND TO PROJECT

3.1. THE NATIONAL CONTEXT:

3.1.1. The national context around the need for asset management planning is now well established, with the Department for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, followed by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister detailing the need for Local Authorities to undertake asset management planning and prescribing the format in which this would be done.

3.1.2. Asset management planning can be defined as “optimising the utilisation of assets in terms of service benefits and financial return”. Asset management planning helps to raise awareness of resources invested in property assets and to develop strategies and programmes to ensure these investments are deployed in the most effective way to meet the Council’s corporate and service objectives.

3.1.3. Local Authorities have been encouraged to update or rewrite their Asset Management Plans to make them into more strategic documents which properly take account of service delivery plans and how property assets can be best used to facilitate change.

3.1.4. The rationalisation of property holdings and disposal of assets provides a clear opportunity to assemble a Capital Receipts Programme to support the priorities of the capital investment programme which includes improvements to retained properties where this will deliver a customer focused and cost effective service.

3.1.5. The need for updated Asset Management Plans and strategies is also recognised under the Comprehensive Performance Assessment (CPA) regime with particular reference to the use of resources. CPA recognises the need for the Strategic Asset Management Plan to work in conjunction with the capital strategy, and there is an expectation under this regime that Strategic Asset Management Plans are updated regularly.

3.1.6. Corporate assessment is part of the Audit Commission’s CPA framework. It focuses on the importance of a sound corporate “engine” to drive good services. It measures how effectively the Council is working corporately and with its partners to improve services and deliver improved outcomes for local people.

3.1.7. Corporate assessments use key lines of enquiry to provide a framework through which to gather and assess evidence about how effectively the Council is working.

3.1.8. The Strategic Asset Management Planning and Comprehensive Performance Assessment both support the Council’s corporate objective of being a High Performing Cost Effective Council. The use of Hubs to deliver services strongly links with this objective and, by focusing service delivery within the community, the Hubs are also likely to impact upon the other corporate objectives.

3.2. THE LOCAL CONTEXT:

3.2.1. One of the manifesto commitments of the current administration was to move away from a service delivery model to a council focussed on community leadership with an emphasis on parish and town council empowerment through community governance. Improving the accessibility to information and services in a more unified manner is vital in respect of developing a good relationship between the Council and the community and the challenge for the Council is to make value for money decisions by joining up service delivery and working in partnership with others.

3.2.2. This can in part be facilitated through the Local Area Agreement, which will see a pooling and aligning of the public sector budgets around local priorities. A visible indication of this approach at a local level is considered to be the introduction of strategically located neighbourhood Hubs linking council service delivery with community-based commissioning of primary care and other multi-partnership uses, allied to the Council’s Strategic Asset Management Plan.

3.2.3. Partnering is beginning to take a more formal structure and in particular the signing up to the Memorandum of Understanding, as part of the Health Integration agenda, between the Council and Primary Care Trust is leading to community-based commissioning of health and social care, and to the emerging Joint Strategic Property Review between the two partners, plus the Police on the Island.

3.2.4. Eventually it is envisaged that other public sector partners may also come on board, particularly in respect of the review of property assets to enable co-location of service delivery and added value for money.

3.2.5. The emergence within the Council of the twelve high impact projects (such as getting it right for the customer first time, operational property, and parish empowerment) will lead to further cross-cutting opportunities with the partners, particularly in light of the Hubs agenda.

3.2.6. The delivery of frontline services by the Council is constantly under review and a pilot scheme provided, in the late 90’s, comprised a ‘one stop shop’ type operation in Ryde. This promoted the concept of a single and efficient point of access to Council services for the local community, where partner agencies were also invited to make use of the facility to provide outreach services.

3.2.7. This scheme was subsequently expanded to include other locations around the Island and the Public Access Team are currently in discussions with representatives of Wootton Bridge Parish Council to explore the future management and delivery of services, and this clearly represents an opportunity to replicate this with other town/parish councils.

3.2.8. It is worth pointing out that Isle of Wight Council currently operates approximately 75 access points Island-wide delivering a variety of services from buildings of differing quality, with no one department responsible for this face to face activity across the Island. All of these locations have to comply with DDA requirements, house receptions and frontline staff, and all have a different approach to the Island’s citizens.

3.2.9. It is clear that the access points need to be reviewed and a strategy developed to help deliver services in a more joined up way for the benefit of the Island as a whole.

3.2.10. Help centres and one stop shops making use of the Council’s CRM system (Customer Relationship Management system) are now able to provide access to a much wider range of services (frequently asked questions, forms, online payments and booking of appointments) at a single point of access. If these main help centres can provide frontline delivery of services in this way, they can reduce the need for the number of access points across the Island.

3.2.11. The CRM system is also installed within libraries and leisure centres, and it is possible that some of these might also be investigated as hub locations, whether major or otherwise.

3.2.12. A reduced number of access points will lead to revenue savings, potential capital receipts, and an improvement in service delivery through co-location. This would be further enhanced with partnership working.

4. CONSULTATION EVIDENCE

4.1. The Commission has consulted widely through formal and informal meetings, correspondence, and site visits with :-

· Isle of Wight Council officers.

· Isle of Wight Councillors.

· Children’s Services.

· The Public Access Team.

· Private consultant - Keith Jones of Performent Consulting.

· The Primary Care Trust Estates Management Department.

· Isle of Wight representatives of the Hampshire and Isle of Wight Constabulary.

· Local Councillors from Freshwater Parish Council.

· Representatives of Freshwater Health Centre.

· Knowsley Council and PCT.

4.2. Commission meeting notes and supporting papers to this enquiry are identified in section 7 of this Blue paper.

5. ISSUES IDENTIFIED

5.1. STRATEGIC:

5.1.1. The principle behind the Hub concept includes:

§ Getting public services closer to the communities that they serve.

§ Having single points of access to public services wherever possible.

§ Having a more business-like office culture to improve productivity, recruitment and retention.

§ Achieving better value for money (revenue and capital) by co-location of public service uses.

§ In the longer term, potentially handing over control of the use of some assets to town and parish councils or the local community.

5.1.2. To date lots of local authorities are talking about Hubs, planning them and building them but very few have built a “full size working model”, ie have yet to roll out more than a single facility.

5.1.3. The national experience is that the Hubs vary in type, size and content, some are evolutionary, some change, and many purely opportunistic. Flexible working/work style is being adopted to create efficient offices.

5.1.4. No one Hub within any other Local Authority areas has yet to include the same collection of facilities/partners and it is envisaged that the Hubs could comprise a front office facility (ie help desk), a back office facility, being a neighbourhood office, touch-down or peripatetic offices, it could include other community uses such as library, school, leisure, children’s centre/youth, health, community, meeting rooms etc and could include partners such as the Police, Primary Care Trust, parish/town council and the Voluntary Sector.

5.1.5. It is important to note that one size does not fit all and it is envisaged that each facility has to be looked at as part of the overall joint property review with our partners, taking into account work style, back office functions, the specific service delivery required etc.

5.1.6. Before a strategic decision can be taken regarding the co-location of service delivery, the service areas must review how and where they wish to continue with this delivery. For example for the Council how many frontline service access points are required around the Island and which services will be delivered? What about partners’ service delivery? Will this be undertaken individually or in partnership, for example joint commissioning and delivery of health and social care?

5.1.7. Until such decisions are taken, the extent and requirements of service delivery cannot be fully defined and therefore the property asset requirements and, indeed, locations cannot be truly identified.

5.2. FINANCIAL:

5.2.1. Considerable sums of money have been expended by some local authorities in building such Hub facilities, and capital is “front end loaded”, ie spend to save. The rationale behind this relates to co-location creating revenue and capital savings with capital receipts being generated from the disposal of redundant/surplus properties resulting from the opening of the Hub.

5.2.2. Even when locations have been identified for Hubs, both in terms of where on the Island, and specifically where in the identified towns, the actual nature of the building or buildings also then need to be considered. This will be particularly important if partner organisations are sharing a building. The issue of ownership of the building with the relevant tenancy or other legal agreements, revenue costs and the like need to be seriously considered in order to ensure a strong working environment providing value for money.

5.2.3. This will be particularly the case if a new building is to be constructed. How will this be funded, will different Hubs be owned by different partners, if existing buildings are to be declared surplus and disposed of, who will benefit from the capital receipts, and how will flexibility be taken into account within such accommodation?

5.2.4. Knowsley Primary Care Trust (PCT) and Council have begun to roll out a series of Hubs and these are based around new build super surgeries (ie doctors’ practices relocating into purpose built premises) which include Council facilities. The Hubs agenda is being led by the PCT, albeit through a joint commissioning of Health and Social Care in partnership with the Council. As the PCT is leading on the Hubs agenda, there is access to NHS Local Improvement Finance Trust (LIFT) funding.

5.2.5. The Knowsley experience is that LIFT is an expensive way of delivering non-clinical “office” accommodation and therefore there is a need in parallel with any estate strategy to explore other alternatives such as flexible working, home working and the reuse of former clinical space.

5.2.6. They state that a forward financial plan matching the estate aspirations is essential, including enabling funds to support land purchases and acquisitions. Alternate funding sources should also be investigated, and certainly on the Isle of Wight it is felt that the funding source is more likely to be (if feasible) via the disposal of existing assets from which the services relocate into the joint Hub facility.

5.2.7. They expound partnership working and state that engaging with the partners at the start of the process is essential.

5.3. OPERATIONAL:

5.3.1. The Council, together with the PCT, via a Memorandum of Understanding, has entered into an agreement to undertake a joint review of their property assets. The Isle of Wight assets of the Hampshire and Isle of Wight Police are also to be included within this review, albeit that there is no Memorandum of Understanding as yet in this respect.

5.3.2. The three partners have recruited an external property partner to provide the resources and capacity, together with skills required to undertake this property review, and one of the outcomes of this will be co-location of service delivery at a community level.

5.3.3. As the property partner has only just been appointed there will obviously be a delay in the property review and the action plan emanating from it. Without this review it may not be sensible to push forward with identifying Hub locations, in order to ensure that every opportunity is considered.

5.3.4. In addition to the possibility of five major Hubs (the current suggestion, being north, south, east, west and central), there might also be further neighbourhood Hubs providing a different level of service delivery, perhaps based around the parish and town council models. In order for the Council to facilitate such opportunities it is likely that the extended school agenda may come into play, following the schools and youth review.

5.3.5. As mentioned before it is likely that the introduction of flexible working practices within the Council will have a bearing on the accommodation required within the emerging Hubs. Notwithstanding any specific local service delivery required, it is likely that the Hubs will also provide a touch-down peripatetic back-office facility for staff living or working locally and the strategy surrounding flexible working with the accompanying HR and ICT implications needs to be investigated further in order to inform the Hubs agenda.

5.3.6. Accessibility to datacomms via a robust fit for purpose ICT infrastructure will be fundamental to the delivery of flexible working and to the hubs, at whatever level. It is crucial that secure and reliable systems are invested in, otherwise connectivity to the ICT network will fail and community based access to council services will be less easily facilitated.

5.3.7. In conjunction with the above the proposals for a joint HQ office facility with the PCT are also likely to impact on the Hubs agenda via the flexible working strategy. It is apparent therefore that Hubs cannot be viewed in isolation but form part of the emerging action plan within the Strategic Asset Management Plan.

5.3.8. One of the features identified nationally in respect of the development of Hubs is opportunity. Freshwater Help Centre has been forced to relocate due to the sale of the original building which was rented from South Wight Housing Association. Short-term the facility has been relocated to Freshwater Library, but this is far from an ideal solution.

5.3.9. An opportunity has been identified around Moa Place car park to create a pilot Hub by potentially bringing together the health centre, youth centre, sports centre and library.

5.3.10. A number of meetings have already taken place, with more planned to establish how this could be achieved in such a way as to facilitate the better provision of services for the local community, also with the possibility of co-location of the parish council within any new facility.

5.4. LEGAL:

5.4.1. In addition to the revenue implications of joint occupation of the building between partner organisations there is also the legal aspect to be considered. Who will own the Hub building and how will the other partners occupy this? Will it be a formal leasehold situation, or licence agreement, or will there be some form of service level agreement? This debate is not only applicable to Hubs but also to Town and Parish Council empowerment with double devolution of service delivery and Isle of Wight Council buildings. In fact there is a direct link between Hubs and this high impact project as there is every likelihood that there will be joint occupation of buildings as a result.

5.4.2. Section 2 of the Local Government Act 2000 provides that a local authority has power to do anything which it considers likely to achieve the promotion or improvement of the economic, social or environmental well-being of their area. This includes the power to incur expenditure, to enter into arrangements or agreements with any person, to co-operate with, or facilitate or co-ordinate the activities of any person, to exercise on behalf of any person any functions of that person and to provide staff, goods, services or accommodation to any person. The term "person" includes a body of persons corporate or incorporate.

6 OPTIONS APPRAISAL (if options are presented)

6.1 Option A – Do nothing, ie retain the status quo

6.1.1 Doing nothing is no longer an option in respect of either service delivery or property rationalisation.

6.1.2 In respect of service delivery it is clearly recognised that the Council cannot continue to operate 75 access points around the Island, irrespective of additional ones operated by potential service partners. This will not lead to efficiency of service delivery.

6.1.3 Without addressing service delivery we will also be unable to rationalise the property port folio and create efficiency savings through co-location of services (both internal and partners) nor achieve property savings both revenue and in the form of capital receipts.

6.2 Option B – formally identify the (five) hub locations and formulate the delivery programme.

6.2.1 In order to achieve this all of the relevant information needs to have been collected and analysed in order to inform the decision process. This is clearly not yet the case.

6.2.2 In order to inform the location of service delivery around the Island we firstly need to establish what services are required, how these are to be delivered, and where the optimum locations are for such delivery. The various services, both internal and partners, then need to be aligned in order to consider the best geographical locations.

6.2.3 Once geographical locations have been identified we then need to consider what properties are owned by the Council or principal partners within these locations in order to ascertain their suitability and whether anything is fit for purpose in respect of such co-location.

6.2.4 It is quite likely that no suitable premises will currently be owned by any of the partners and therefore what may be required is consideration of new premises or extensions to be constructed with other properties being disposed of in order to facilitate the funding. Until further work has been undertaken by the property partners we will be unable to realistically identify these opportunities and therefore formulate this action.

6.3 Option C – Instigate a pilot scheme and review, pending further detailed work.

6.3.1 It is acknowledged that no one local authority has yet to roll out a formal programme of HUBS and that they all to date have varied tremendously in size, delivery and content. What is apparent is that a number of those delivered have been purely opportunistic.

6.3.2 It has been recognised that a HUB does not necessarily have to be under one roof, but can be a serious of buildings within a given location. At present an excellent opportunity presents itself around Moa Place Car Park in Freshwater for delivery of a West Wight HUB. The buildings within this location currently comprise the Youth Centre, the Sports Centre, the Health Centre (Doctors surgery) and on the opposite side of the road the library.

6.3.3 A number of meetings have taken place between Officers of the Council, the police, local ward members, and the PCT in order to ascertain how this opportunity can be taken forwards. Technical research is being undertaken in respect of the Youth Centre building to investigate whether a first floor could be constructed. There may also be an opportunity of connecting the three buildings with a new entrance link building, subject to the physical feasibility, financial feasibility and agreement of the various parties.

6.3.4 In adopting this option the partners can test the viability of running a HUB, whilst additional research is undertaken in respect of the service delivery strategy, and the partners service area requirements in terms of physical location. It would also allow time for the external property partner to undertake the review of the partners property assets in order to relate this to the HUBS agenda with respect in particular to co-location.

7 Financial / Reputational Risk Assessment

For details of risk scoring and matrix see Appendix.

Nature of Risk	Option A	Option B	Option C	Possible controls
Reputational – this report does not result in delivery of the HUBS programme	2 x 4 = 11	3 x 4 = 14	2 x 2 = 5	Delay the Blue Paper until further research has been undertaken
Reputational – the HUBS programme is delivered too early without fully informed research, with potential for poorly identified locations	N/A	4 x 4 = 16	2 x 1 = 3	Delay the HUBS programme with the exception of the pilot, until sufficient research has been undertaken
Reputational – occupational issues are not resolved between the partners before commencing the programme, resulting in differences of opinion over occupation	N/A	2 x 3 = 8	1 x 2 = 3	Ensure the HUBS are based on fully informed decisions and that full legal and financial agreements are reached before occupation takes place
Finance – failure to achieve the HUBS within capital budget constraints, ie through disposal of existing “redundant” premises	N/A	4 x 4 = 16	2 x 2 = 5	Ensure decisions are fully informed
Finance – failure to deliver revenue savings through co-location	3 x 4 = 14	3 x 3 = 12	1 x 2 = 2	Ensure decisions are made on fully informed research
Finance – Partners failing to contribute to capital funding	N/A	3 x 3 = 12	3 x 3 = 12	Legal agreements to be in place prior to committing funds/starting build.
Reputational – Failure to reach agreement with partners to work jointly towards creating HUBS	N/A	2 x 3 = 8	3 x 3 = 12

8 Operational Risk Assessment

For details of risk scoring and matrix see Appendix.

Nature of Risk

Option A

Option B

Option C

Possible controls

Wrong mix of services and/or partners

N/A

3 x 3 = 12

3 x 1 = 6

Ensure the service area requirements are fully researched before commencing

Failure to improve service delivery

2 x 4 = 11

3 x 4 = 14

2 x 2 = 5

Ensure a service delivery plan is agreed before commencement of the full programme

9 EVIDENCE / BACKGROUND PAPERS / ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

Documents available on request.

Internal

Isle of Wight Council (IWC). Community Governance Paper. 2005
IWC. Public Access Proposals Report. 2005
IWC. Neighbourhood HUBS Paper. 2006
IWC. Notes of evidence Policy Commission for Economy, Tourism, Regeneration and Transport 13 September 2006
IWC. Notes of evidence Policy Commission for Economy, Tourism, Regeneration and Transport. 11 October 2006
IWC. Notes of evidence Policy Commission for Economy, Tourism, Regeneration and Transport. 8 November 2006

Prepared by:

Date:

Cllr Jonathan Fitzgerald-Bond and Barry Cooke, Corporate Property Manager

30 April 2007

15 - 16	Red	V. high risk
12 - 14	Red	High risk
7 - 11	Amber	Medium risk
1 - 6	Green	Low risk

FACTOR	SCALE	THREATS - DESCRIPTION	INDICATORS
Very likely	4	More than 75% chance of occurrence	Regular occurrence Circumstances frequently encountered -daily/weekly/monthly
Likely	3	40% - 75% chance of occurrence	Likely to happen at some point within the next 1-2 years Circumstances occasionally encountered (few times a year)
Unlikely	2	10% - 40% chance of occurrence	Only likely to happen 3 or more years
Remote	1	Less than 10% chance of occurrence	Has happened rarely/never before

3

High

Medium