To note the Minutes of the last special meeting of the three Committees which took place on 12 January 2015.

The minutes of the co-located meeting held at Tunbridge Town Hall on 12 January 2015 were noted. 

Councillors should not act or take decisions in order to gain financial or other material benefits for  themselves or their spouse, civil partner or person with whom they are living with as a spouse or civil partner.  They must declare and resolve any interests and relationships.

The Chairman will ask Members if they have any interests to declare in respect of items on this agenda, under the following headings:

(a)          Disclosable Pecuniary Interests (DPI) under the Localism Act 2011.  The nature as well as the existence of any such interest must be declared.  After declaring a DPI, the Member must leave the meeting and not take part in the discussion or vote.  This applies even if there is provision for public speaking.

(b)          Disclosable Non Pecuniary (DNPI) under the Code of Conduct adopted by the Council in May 2012.  The nature as well as the existence of any such interest must be declared.  After declaring a DNPI interest, the Member may stay, speak and vote on the matter.

Advice to Members:  If any Councillor has any doubt about the existence or nature of any DPI or DNPI which he/she may have in any item on this agenda, he/she should seek advice from the Director of Corporate Services as Monitoring Officer, the Head of Legal or from other Solicitors in Legal Services as early as possible, and in advance of the Meeting.

No interests were declared.

(a)  Project Implementation Review – Rich Clarke, Head of Audit Partnership will be in attendance to present this report (Appendix I);

(b)  Planning Support Implementation – Members of the MKIP Board will provide a response to the implementation review (Appendix II)

For information, the membership of the MKIP Board is as follows:

·         Councillor Annabelle Blackmore, Leader of Maidstone Borough Council

·         Alison Broom, Chief Executive of Maidstone Borough Council

·         Councillor Andrew Bowles, Leader of Swale Borough Council

·         Abdool Kara, Chief Executive of Swale Borough Council

·         Councillor David Jukes, Leader of Tunbridge Wells Borough Council

·         William Benson, Chief Executive of Tunbridge Wells Borough Council

            Sandra Fryer, Interim Head of Planning Support Services, will also be in attendance. 

(c)  Update on the latest position – A verbal update will be provided by the MKIP Board and Interim Head of Planning Support Services. 

Please note:  For background information, a copy of the minutes of the Tri-Cabinet meeting, dated 12 June 2013, is attached.  The following is a link to the agenda pack that formed the background to the decision set out in the attached minutes: http://services.swale.gov.uk/meetings/CeListDocuments.aspx?MID=313&RD=Notice%20of%20Meeting&DF=12%2f06%2f2013&A=1&R=0

If any member would like to have a copy of this agenda pack, could they please request this from Democratic Services on 01795 417360 or by e-mail at: DemocraticServices@swale.gov.uk

The Chairman, Councillor Mrs Gooch, welcomed the Swale Borough Council Scrutiny Committee and the Tunbridge Wells Overview and Scrutiny Committee to Maidstone for a co-located meeting of the three Committees.

The Chairman informed the Committees that nationally a great many councils were involved in sharing services, and that the government had strongly encouraged local Councils to share services and staff. The MKIP constituent authorities were early adopters of the shared service agenda. The function of scrutiny was to objectively challenge policy development and decision making, in order to provide constructive reflection in the name of public accountability. As such the purpose of the meeting was to provide reassurance to residents and the public that lessons had been learned and improvements made.

Project Implementation Review

The Committee welcomed the Head of Mid Kent Audit Partnership, Rich Clarke, who presented a report into the Planning Support Project Implementation Review. Mr Clarke outlined the three major issues identified in the report:

1. Not employing a recognised project methodology

The project did not fully employ the project methodologies that had been well developed in-house by the MKIP authorities, nor did it fully employ formally recognised techniques such as PRINCE II. This resulted in the lack of a clear detailed project plan until late on in the process, inconsistent assignment of roles and responsibilities, and non-creation or monitoring of a project risk register. This lack of resilience made the project vulnerable to issues as they arose, and prevented the anticipation and mitigation of future problems.

2. Not fully establishing the project’s scope and complexity

The implementation of the Planning Support Shared Service (PSSS) required the physical relocation of staff, the procurement and use of a new software package, combining the services under a single manager without extensive experience in planning support management, and the simultaneous delivery of another shared service which put pressure on the availability of resources.

The approach to the shared service was novel. It split an existing service into two separate components, without a consistent understanding across the three authorities as to where the divide began and ended. This also required a complete reorganisation of business processes.

The software element of the project was understood to be separate, even though it became clear from the outset that ICT related matters were of importance to the implementation of the total project.

3. Attempting delivery within existing resources

This increased pressure on key individuals, and led to projects being delivered without the required level of expertise or time needed.

Mr Clarke noted that the three authorities had enthusiastically taken on board the findings of the report and had each committed to making improvements accordingly.

The Chairman of the meeting, Councillor Gooch, invited Members to comment upon the report.

• Councillor Henderson (SBC) asked for clarification as to how the IT issues arose across the three authorities. Mr Clarke explained that only one of the three, Tunbridge Wells BC, had used the IDOX software before but in a different format. Swale and Maidstone BC had not used IDOX before.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 537.

After the members of the MKIP Board had departed, members of the three Committees considered what further action was necessary at this stage, based upon the responses they had just received and the evidence before them.

• Councillor Butler (MBC) felt that committee members required more detailed information about the financial consequences of the numerous difficulties which the joint Planning Support service had suffered since its launch. The Chairman acknowledged that this was important further evidence, which she asked be circulated to all Committee members as soon as this was available;

• Councillor Booth (SBC) voiced his dissatisfaction with the responses the committees had heard at the meeting. He proposed that a further more detailed examination of the situation was required, which considered was best undertaken by a Joint Task and Finish Group;

• Councillor Booth (SBC)  acknowledged that Swale Borough Council’s all out elections on 7 May meant that the Task and Finish Group was faced with a dilemma; either it was required to complete its work before the election or delay the start of its work until mid-May; when the newly appointed Overview and Scrutiny Committee was in place.  
  
  

This was seconded by Councillor Henderson (SBC).

• Councillor Gooch (MBC) sought clarification over exactly what the Task and Finish Group was being tasked to undertake. Councillor Woodward endorsed this view, adding that it was vital that the scope of the Task and Finish Group was determined first, before any work could begin;
  
  
• Councillor Henderson (SBC) felt that there were two distinct functions for the Task and Finish Group: an element of ‘looking back’ and identifying why and how the project had been so poorly managed. This, he felt would help to identify and frame a set of recommendations for the MKIP Board to apply to any subsequent MKIP project. The second function was to look at the future of the Planning Support service and determine what remaining operational activities were required to be implemented (e.g. land charges, GIS mapping, a paperless system, problems of accuracy etc). Councillor Henderson also felt that the financial performance of the service should be a factor that the Task and Finish Group should consider;
  
  
• Committee members discussed whether these elements would be beneficial, with Councillor Hills (TWBC) preferring an approach which focused on frequent, detailed and reliable reports being presented back from the Planning Support Project Board which could demonstrate whether the actions now being followed were delivering the service. Councillor Gooch (MBC) also felt it would be helpful to determine what ‘normality’ looked like. The evidence the Interim Head of Planning Support Services had offered to provide would be vital in helping the three committees in their next stages;
  
  
• Councillor Rankin (TWBC) endorsed the view that there was little benefit in looking back. At this stage, Councillor Rankin felt there were three Overview and Scrutiny tasks (i) the need to be satisfied that the MKIP Board’s response was the right one, (ii) the need to have a detailed performance update; and (iii) the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 538.