Chris Lee, Director of Environment and Regeneration, introduced the Shared Services report highlighting this covers three areas:

·         An update on existing shared services;

·         An overview of what areas might be suitable for an expansion of shared services; and

·         Information on the Government’s proposals for commercialisation of planning, which is already being considered as a future shared service at Merton.

In response to questions from Panel members, Chris Lee clarified:

Planning shared service:

·         Consultation with staff regarding the option of a staff mutual has not been formal but there has been no interest expressed.  Also, a single team could not offer the required level of cost savings;

·         Kingston and Sutton have different operating models for the proposed shared service and an earlier launch date because they started this process earlier – Merton’s involvement has happened later;

·         Provision for withdrawing from the shared service would be included in the agreement;

·         The overhead per member of staff will be clarified.  The business case is due in September 2016.  This is the point at which a detailed understanding will be gained of the likely cost saving;

·         Whilst the Government’s proposal for commercialising the planning process hadn’t been anticipated, it is still intended to proceed with developing a shared service because this will lower costs and provide service resilience.

Government’s proposed commercialisation of the planning service:

·         Currently, this is a proposal that the Government is seeking to explore through a number of pilots.  There is a lack of detail which learning from the pilots will seek to address;

·         The commercialisation of the service would mean any council or any private company could be contracted directly by the developer to write a planning report but the council would retain responsibility for the planning decision; and

·         Merton is yet to agree what stance it will take in the consultation response on the pilots.  A draft can be shared with Panel members for their feedback.`

Panel members expressed their concerns about the Government’s proposal to commercialise the planning service:

·         Where reports are no longer prepared by the council, there will potentially be no source of income for the council to cover its costs;

·         Potential for duplication of cost as reports are reviewed by Council staff;

·         Unclear where Prior Approval applications / Permitted development applications would be dealt with since these carry no fee;

·         With developers paying for their own report writers, there is a risk that reports won’t be impartial and therefore will undermine trust in the planning process;

·         External providers may give a different level of service (potentially to make this cost effective) and this may not be sufficient to enable councils to make well-informed decisions which leaves them exposed;

·         There is potential for commercial providers to focus on larger developments where higher fees can be charged;

·         One approach would be for the Government to set the level of fees; and

·         Analysis shows that delays in development aren’t caused by local authorities that are in the main reaching all their targets for processing planning applications.   Largely, delays are down to developers that either don’t want to build what they have permission for or are holding onto land in the hope that this will increase in value.  These proposals will not have the desired effect.

RESOLVED: To note the report and feed into the draft of the council’s consultation response when this is available.