Agenda item

The Panel received a report which set out the proposed structure and delivery model for the Corporate Landlord and Facilities Management function from 1 April 2021.

The Cabinet Member with responsibility (CMR) for Transformation and Commissioning reminded the Panel of the background to the establishment of Place Partnership Ltd (PPL) in 2015 which was to provide property management services through an innovative arrangement by which each partner would gain benefit from the strategic use of  collective assets which would lead to efficiency and savings opportunities through scale and scope of the company. Unfortunately, over time some partners decided that the organisation was no longer meeting their needs and in 2018 Worcester City and Redditch Borough Councils gave notice to exit the agreement.

The CMR advised that in 2020, this Council had also made the decision to terminate its contract with PPL with effect from March 2021. Internal structures were then considered which would return direct control of the strategic activity of property services to the Members and Officers of the Council.  Shortly afterwards, a meeting was held with the remaining PPL partners about the sustainability of the company moving forward and as a result of those discussions, it was agreed that it would be in the collective interests of all the remaining partners for the Company to be brought to a close from 31 March 2021. To this end the partners had committed to a solvent Members Voluntary Liquidation arrangement which would be in place until the end of the third quarter of 2021.

The CMR stressed that in advance of the above, she had reinforced the importance of the following factors being given due consideration:

·         How best to secure an optimum balance between services being provided in-house and those brought in from the market.

·         How to ensure best value and savings for the Council

·         How to minimise redundancies

·         How best to achieve a continuation of services for schools.

The Chairman asked the Strategic Director to provide some further detail to enable the Panel to understand the changes that were taking place and the benefits which the Council would obtain from the new arrangements. In addition, the Panel were keen to know how the staffing issues were being handled and the current situation with the transfer of staff. The Strategic Director advised that there was a report to Cabinet later in the week which provided more detailed information including on the proposed new delivery model to be implemented. He commented that whilst PPL had been an innovative initiative, the partners had grown apart and this Council, as a commissioning Council, had taken action to ensure that the interests of the Council’s estate and customers continued to be its main focus with best value being the key priority. 

As part of the process of closing down the company, the Strategic Director explained that some elements of the workforce would not be transferred to one of the partner organisations. He assured the Panel, however, that all the partners were committed to ensuring that any suitable vacancies that they had within their organisations were made known to PPL staff to minimize redundancies.  It was also noted that some staff had taken the opportunity to move on to other roles. The AD for Human Resources clarified that as PPL was the employer, it was the company which was responsible for the consultation process with staff.  The partners had actively sought an earlier consultation period because of the complexity of the TUPE arrangements and to ensure staff had plenty of time to obtain answers to all their questions. The Panel was informed that the Council had been able to secure more PPL staff roles within the Council than the company had originally suggested.

The Assistant Director for Transformation and Commercial advised that 160 staff were transferring to one of the partner organisations, (approximately 50 to this Council), with the vast majority being subject to TUPE. Through negotiation with contractors, 3 of the school staff were also set to transfer to an alternative provider, Civico. A further 30 staff were subject to a ring-fenced recruitment process, which the Assistant Director explained were those roles which didn’t qualify for 50% of TUPE. He believed that there were a number of vacancies that these staff would be suited to, but the TUPE regulations required them to apply for the vacancies in the usual way. 

A number of further questions and issues were raised by Members:

·         In terms of how the situation had changed in the last year regarding asset management, the Strategic Director advised that this was a good time to be reviewing real estate and creating a vision for going forward.  He commented that they were more ambitious about how to meet the needs of customers and staff and felt it was important to have a flexible, innovative Property services back in-house to meet the changing needs of the Council.

·         A Member commented that an understanding of the cost to the Council of joining and then leaving PPL would be welcome. Questions regarding the scale of PPL and whether the Council should have left the organisation earlier were also raised.

·         A Member asked whether the Council was incurring additional costs to protect buildings which were currently unoccupied as a result of the pandemic. The Panel was informed that overall costs had reduced e.g. for heating and reactive repairs and maintenance, but that there were some increased costs for cleaning buildings and signage.

·         Details of the PPL contracts were sought. The Assistant Director advised that there were approximately 54 PPL contracts with all but 16 of those being less than £5k in value. As to the value of the other 16 contracts, the majority were less than £50k.  The Panel was informed that suppliers were being contacted directly and new contracts were being established. Roughly half had been agreed to date, with the remainder to be dealt with in the coming weeks. It was stressed that in due course these contracts would be reviewed as to whether they are fit for purpose, but the priority at this stage was continuity of service.

·         Helpdesk arrangements – the Helpdesk support would continue to be provided by Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council, as an add-on to the Graham Facilities Management and Dodds access agreements.  This service was provided on a not for profit basis and the Council would review its position over the next 12 months.

·         A Member queried whether as part of ‘One Worcestershire’, the Council would be looking to have partnerships with the District Councils in the future. The Strategic Director advised that a One Worcestershire Estate partnership was already in place and working well with frequent meetings taking place. He added that he welcomed discussions on service delivery.

The Chairman commended the CMR and the Officers for their work and for an excellent detailed report and to the Panel for a very useful discussion. Members had no outstanding information requirements, having received detailed answers to their questions during the meeting.