Contact: Alison Quant, ext 5099 email: [email protected]

1. Summary

1.1 The following decisions are sought:

That the Executive Members for Environment:

(i) support the proposal to devolve additional functions to area offices to improve customer focus, to improve the integration of services and to reduce overheads; and

(ii) decide whether to implement a three or four area structure and the preferred boundaries.

2. Reason

2.1 This decision supports Aim 5 (Improving Services) of the Corporate Strategy by delivering integrated services at a local level in the most efficient and effective manner.

3. Other Options Considered and Rejected

3.1 Not to review working arrangements for service delivery and a range of area options up to 11 areas.

4. Conflicts of Interest Declared by the Decision Maker or Other Executive Member Consulted - None.

5. Dispensation granted by the Standards Committee - Not applicable.

6. Reason(s) for the Matter being dealt with if Urgent - Not applicable.

Approved by: Date:

Councillor T G Knight

Councillor J K Glen

887Decn/AQ

Contact: Alison Quant, ext 5099 email: [email protected]

1. Summary

1.1 The purpose of this review was to examine how the Highways and Transport functions in the Environment Department should be distributed between headquarters and area offices, to best deliver integrated services at a local level, taking account of efficiency and effectiveness considerations.

1.2 The service employs some 445 staff. Currently, most Highway Maintenance client staff (127) are located in four main area offices, with satellite premises in every other District. These area offices are mainly housed in District Council offices. All other Highways and Transport functions are based at Ashburton Court, Winchester.

1.3 The review objectives were to:

(i) improve customer focus;

(ii) improve the integration of services; and

(iii) reduce overheads (management, administration and offices) - a target of £250,000 per annum was set subsequently.

1.4 The review, which involved extensive fact finding, comparison with other local authorities and consultation with stakeholders, is now complete. This report outlines the review process and conclusions and the changes to be recommended for decision by the Executive Members. In particular the views of the Environment Policy Review Committee (PRC) were sought on changes to the area boundaries.

2. Introduction

2.1 The project brief setting out the aim, objectives, parameters and an outline project plan for the review was approved by Environment PRC on 23 June 2005. A five Member Panel from the PRC was appointed to contribute to the review.

2.2 Fact finding has included:

(i) undertaking a desktop study and preparing a summary report of 14 County Council Audit Commission inspection reports on highways and/or transportation services;

(ii) identifying Audit Commission best practice from inspection reports; and

(iii) obtaining further information from the following authorities:

(a) Essex County Council which had undertaken detailed best practice research to inform its own review;

(b) Kent County Council;

(c) Surrey County Council;

(d) Devon County Council; and

(e) Northamptonshire County Council regarding the way it works with Atkins consultants (which has both maintenance and professional services as an integrated contract).

2.3 Selecting key elements from the Audit Commission reports shows that an effective Highways and Transport service should:

(i) have clear communications and contact arrangements;

(ii) involve customers in policy development and service planning;

(iii) have clear focus on customers and satisfaction;

(iv) ensure local delivery of services is integrated to improve customer service and satisfaction;

(v) put the emphasis on partnership working and cooperative joint working to improve efficiencies; and

(vi) have joined-up working practices in place across the Council departments and area offices, and also with external stakeholders.

2.4 Consultation has included:

(i) County Council Members (the two Executive Members and the PRC Panel on 4 October). This group identified what the success criteria were from a Member perspective (attached as Appendices 1 and 2).

(ii) District/Borough and a range of Parish/Town Council Members were invited to attend a planned workshop session but the response was very low so it had to be cancelled. The option of conducting a professional telephone survey was rejected on cost grounds (£500 per head).

(iii) District Council officers (through the Chief Engineers' Group on 30 September).

(iv) Contractors (Raynesway, Atkins, SEC, Siemens and Mott McDonald).

(v) Affected third tier officers have been heavily involved in the generation and preliminary evaluation of options.

2.5 Those sections within the Environment Department included within the review were:

(i) Highway Maintenance (area offices and HQ);

(ii) Traffic Management and Road Safety;

(iii) Transport Policy;

(iv) Passenger Transport (Strategy and Implementation);

(v) Transport Implementation; and

(vi) Intelligent Transport Systems.

2.6 In order to keep the review manageable, it was decided that the possible addition of further staff who could be located anywhere, eg Engineering Consultancy and the question of co-location with the term maintenance contractor and professional services consultant would be considered once the preferred structural option had been identified.

2.7 Agency arrangements with District Councils were also excluded from the review. These account for a further 35 FTE staff.

3. The Options

3.1 Seven potential structural options were generated initially:

(i) 1(a) - Staff located in Winchester HQ and the area offices as at present (the status quo) but with a greater integration of highway management and transportation teams to produce multi-disciplinary, area-focused teams.

(ii) 1(b) - As 1(a) but devolving around 50 transportation staff from HQ to the existing area offices/locations (extra accommodation would be needed).

(iii) 2(a-d) - Around 90 staff remaining at HQ with a further 170 kept largely as a unit but not necessarily at HQ. Seventy-five other staff would be placed in multi-disciplinary teams and devolved out to either two, three, four or five area offices.

(iv) A minimum number of staff at HQ with other staff devolved out to the districts in a total of 11 area offices.

3.2 These were prioritised to four, with options 1(a), 2(a) and 3 being eliminated in the first assessment for the following reasons.

3.3 The first option of the status quo but with greater integration of area based teams (1a) was seen to have distinct benefits to the Department in terms of ensuring sharing of local needs and knowledge, minimal cost to change and ease of implementation. However, it was considered that this may not effect a marked change in achieving a more joined-up approach or the perception of the services. The early implementation of this option is seen to be a useful preliminary step towards one of the other options.

3.4 The option of two areas (2a) was seen to be a good fit for existing area arrangements in Transport Policy and Transport Implementation and would make a clear statement of intent to be more locally facing without introducing too many inefficiencies. However, a split between North Hampshire and South Hampshire was not considered sufficient to deliver the localism agenda and was actually moving in the other direction for the County Council's highway maintenance functions. It may impose significant travel requirements for highway maintenance staff, who could be covering long distances.

3.5 Whilst it was deemed desirable to deliver services as locally as possible, it also became apparent that this could not go too far as efficiency begins to suffer as the benefits of team working fall below a critical mass. Option 3, with 11 area offices was therefore not considered to be viable and it was later concluded that the maximum number of fully functional offices that could be supported would be five.

3.6 The advantages/disadvantages/risks and viabilities/dependencies of the remaining four options were scored against a set of success criteria as set out in Appendix 3.

3.7 The preferred option which emerged is a hybrid and involves 85 staff from the following HQ functions being devolved to three or four area offices:

(i) Highway Management;

(ii) Traffic Management;

(iii) Local Transport Policy, including Highways Development Control and School Travel Planning; and

(iv) Transport Implementation.

3.8 In the three area model, the remaining county-wide, HQ based highway management functions such as street lighting, arboriculture, management of the term maintenance contractor and regulatory functions would be grouped under one manager. At the moment these responsibilities are distributed between the area managers although based at HQ. In a four area model, the HQ functions would continue to be distributed between the area managers but might continue to be based at HQ, depending on the availability and cost of premises.

3.9 Both of these options will enable the same reduction (three) in the top two tiers of management. Staff are currently being consulted on these proposals and there may be some fine tuning of the preferred option. This will be reported verbally.

Number of Areas/Offices

3.10 Three Areas - Advantages were seen here in aligning the County Council's areas broadly with the strategic planning areas and loss of expertise arising from breaking professional teams into small numbers would be minimal. The comparatively large area of central Hampshire and the New Forest was however thought to be possibly too large an area to have a single, cohesive local identity.

3.11 Four Areas - This option was seen as benefiting from an existing structure of local delivery for Highway Management which works well from a highway maintenance perspective in terms of operational balance and working relationships. Moving the Eastleigh district from the East into the South area has major advantages in transport planning terms and is the main change recommended in this model. Continuation with the current boundaries would have the advantage of well-formed political and organisational relationships. However these boundaries have little meaning for the new functions to be devolved. Devolving transportation staff into four smaller units was seen to be at the limit of efficiency working, although there could be, as yet unknown, synergies arising from new working relationships with network management staff.

3.12 Five Areas - Evaluation of this option (and further breakdowns in six, seven, etc) was difficult with there being no clear rationale from the criteria on which a five area structure would be based. It could also be a leap into the unknown with local political and organisational allegiances. Concerns were that smaller groupings of staff for the newly devolved functions would lose organisational focus, professional discipline and expertise.

Management Structures

3.13 In general, a smaller number of offices would mean lower managerial and administrative costs. Work on possible structures and an evaluation of costs is under way. A three area model would be a little more efficient at lower management tiers but the level of saving cannot yet be quantified as detailed structures will not be fully developed until the higher level management structure is determined.

3.14 A different delivery structure will require different management roles. Mixing current team specialisms will require different structures from the current third and fourth tier structures.

3.15 The proposal for four area offices will not necessarily result in area teams of the same size as the demographics and urban/rural nature of the different areas will bring different service demands.

Premises Implications

3.16 Advice from County Estates indicates that premises unit costs are not likely to vary significantly between the two, three, four, five area office options, although set-up costs would increase the more sites are chosen. Premises costs are generally higher in the north-east of the county.

3.17 Both Children's Services and Adult Services are reviewing their area delivery structures and an integration of premises would provide a stronger local presence for Hampshire County Council and greater opportunities for realising premises efficiencies, through shared desks, receptions and IT equipment. However this will depend on the level of fit between area working arrangements in each service area. The review in the Environment Department is the first to complete. A strategic property review is to be carried out by the Council that will seek to make efficiency savings on the current portfolio through greater hot desking by front line staff.

3.18 The District Council highway maintenance satellite offices are currently too small to be effective and efficient working units. They also get little personal use by the public or even District Members. They were established as part of the negotiations for taking back the highway maintenance agency arrangements three to four years ago. The other argument advanced for their retention is to integrate the activities of District and County staff on Highways and Transport matters. The need for integration arises in particular from some of the current agency arrangements. However there will continue to be a need for partnership working on Spatial Planning. Delivering some of the major housing areas proposed in the South East Plan is likely to require some joint delivery arrangements in due course, but these are likely to be above the District level (eg South Hampshire).

3.19 Any perceived loss of accessibility from removing satellite District offices can be compensated by having a customer relationship manager for each District within the area office structure and offering Members convenient meeting locations where appropriate.

4. Advice Requested

4.1 The Environment PRC was asked to:

(i) comment on the conclusions of the review and the process for reaching those conclusions;

(ii) consider the case for a three or four area structure; and

(iii) consider the boundaries for a three or four area structure.

5. Impact Assessments

5.1 Assessment of the Race Relations (Amendment) Act has been considered in this review but no adverse impact has been identified.

Recommendation

That the Executive Members for Environment:

(i) support the review objectives to improve customer focus, to improve the integration of services and to reduce overheads; and

(ii) recommend their preference for either a three or four area structure and the preferred boundaries.

887Rpt/AQ

APPENDIX 1

COUNTY COUNCIL MEMBER CONSULTATION WORKSHOP

4 OCTOBER 2005

Present:

Councillors Officers

Councillor Jonathan Glen (C ) Alan Mills

Councillor Tim Knight (C ) Lynn Elliott

Councillor Eunice Byrom (C ) Peter Brown

Councillor Anne Edwards (L)

Councillor Keith House (LD)

Councillor Robin McIntosh (C )

Councillor Sam Payne (LD)

Session 1: Success Criteria

What is important when we deliver services and what are the key success criteria.

Group 1

Provide our services without the need for public intervention (ie when we get it right there is no need for public intervention/complaint).

Respond promptly, courteously, logically with feedback - manage expectations and an easily contactable service.

Provide seamless services across the tiers of local government/one stop operation.

Environment is key public interface every day (congestion, road and pavement condition per MORI survey).

Provide clear information on what impacts on them.

Provide a strong face for the County Council.

Provide clear communication on anticipated service standards - manage expectations.

Reduce repeat jobs requires management, knowledge and appropriate methods/ quality.

Need flexibility and autonomy on what we do and how we do it, meaning prioritisation of work according to need.

To enable sufficient service flexibility to meet emerging priorities.

Output (improved service) v Input (effective use of resources).

Better external communication - direct, relevant.

Ensure integration between linked tasks, for example policy-design-build-maintain.

Key success criteria are:

Key output: Impact on service delivery and local responsiveness (getting it right and getting it done within good time).

Key input: Cost (which leads to efficiency and effectiveness).

Group 2

Key success criteria:

Effectiveness: need right scheme to be delivered in the right place and efficiency follows on (devolve budgets to local level to improve accountability for resources available and cost implications of decisions).

Local intelligence: know what the community wants and have two-way communications on what they want and what we can do.

Impact (visual): what we are doing for the community should have a high impact with visibility that shows the County Council is doing the work for the public. Aim to end up with the local environment and quality of life better than it was before.

Technology: Marketing and access using the web along with open communications. Could have an interactive map of jobs in progress/due to start so public can feedback directly on a job on the map by clicking on it and entering the information so that we can pick up local issues. Can also use mobile phone cameras to send images of issues/problems directly back to the Council. Technology can enable less staff to have to move out to localities. In Eastleigh young people have been asked to put a text number into their mobile phone so they can text issues into the Council with a photo as this is their preferred contact mechanism.

"They pay, we perform".

Sessions 2 and 3: Areas to Improve and Strengths in the Way We Deliver Services Currently

Other Comments/Observations

Risk and management of risk overlays everything.

Co-location in district offices: benefit of being able to talk directly and easily with borough transport engineers/planners.

Sometimes do not pay enough attention to districts.

This County Council Member group would like the review information to be taken back to them in a similar forum, particularly to discuss proposals for rationalising overheads/management layers.

Need appropriate communications for the type of stakeholder (elected or not ie LSP). Wary of consultation groups being formed and not being represented. Level and value of feedback taken on board by different stakeholders.

One tongue in cheek strapline "less talk, more action!"

APPENDIX 2

SUCCESS CRITERIA USED TO EVALUATE OPTIONS

Priorities identified by Member Working Group are highlighted in bold, italics and underlined

The evaluation mechanism:

1	Fully meets the criteria
2	Meets the criteria in part
3	Marginally meets the criteria
4	Does not meet the criteria
5	Adverse impact on criteria

APPENDIX 3

EVALUATION OF SHORTLISTED OPTIONS AGAINST THE SUCCESS CRITERIA FOR THE REVIEW

Scoring the service and option against the detailed Success Criteria (lowest score is most suitable)

1	Fully meets the criteria
2	Meets the criteria in part
3	Marginally meets the criteria
4	Does not meet the criteria
5	Adverse impact on criteria

* 1b note: minimum score is if the option 1b can be accommodated within current area offices and that service support is available; the maximum score is if accommodation and service support is not available