Agenda item

To implement a common Case Management System across the Partnership in order to realise efficiency savings through the alignment of teams and technology (report of the Assistant Director – Corporate, the Assistant Director – Regulatory and the Assistant Director – Planning enclosed).

Consideration was given to the report of the Assistant Director – Corporate, the Assistant Director – Regulatory and the Assistant Director – Planning, which requested implementation of a common Case Management System across the Partnership in order to realise efficiency savings through the alignment of teams and technology.

The Portfolio Holder – Corporate Governance and Communications presented the report, which brought forward a Business Case that sought to secure the funding to align the multiple Case Management Systems in place in the Planning and Regulatory Directorates in Boston and South Holland Councils, to the Uniform system currently being deployed at East Lindsey District Council.  An alignment would also benefit the Wellbeing and Community Leadership Directorate , in particular the Housing Standards Team.

At present, South Holland District Council operated a total of 4 Case Management systems, that would be replaced by Uniform, as set out in the table at 2.4 of the report.  It was noted that the existing Ocella system would cease to operate in January 2027 so must be replaced.

As well as the revenue savings identified within the report, an alignment would unlock further significant efficiency savings by enabling teams to come together across the Partnership, aligning processes and procedures.

The following issues were raised:

·       If systems were aligned, what would happen in the event of a separation of the Partnership?

o   With regard to IT alignment, all three councils would move on to a system, but with data on it being held separately meaning SHDC could access its data irrespective of the other two authorities.  Licences would need to be dealt with however, there would be no large costs involved in moving again but the Council would need to decide what it wanted to do at that point in time.

·       Clarity was sought on the non-cashable benefits.  In addition, section 2.3 of the covering report stated that early work by the Planning and Regulatory Services Directorates, as part of the development of their service reviews, identified that with the system alignment brought forward within the report, their services could deliver more than £340,000 of efficiencies above that which was possible without service alignment – what were the proposals for the initial savings of around £175,00 (the difference between the amount of £514,679 stated at 2.9 and the figure at 2.3)? 

o   With regard to non-cashable benefits – some benefits could not be recognised financially.  With one system, officers could work across the Partnership more effectively and easily rather than the current situation of working on separate systems.

o   With regard to the amount of £340,000 stated at 2.3, this was a single amount that could be released from Regulatory Services and Planning through this piece of work.  At the last Council meeting, a service review of Regulatory Services had been agreed and this had alluded to a figure of £355,000 of achievable savings.  In addition, since the service review had been agreed, a further £240,000 could be released if technology was aligned.  In addition, as part of a planned service review of Planning, at least a further £100,00 savings could be achieved (on top of other savings) through alignment of technology.  The table at 2.7 showed the financial business case, with these assumptions included, with SHDC receiving 31% of the benefit (its proportion of the Partnership), with savings achievable from year 3 onwards.  The £175,000 was system savings.

·       The report and partnership working were welcomed – what was the planned date for implementation, and were there any costs to withdrawing from existing systems?

o   Costs of withdrawal had already been included within the financial Business Case.  In terms of implementation, ELDC was already on the journey with completion due in Q1 25/26.  Implementation at SHDC would start in Q4 24/25 and run until Q2 26/27.

·       In response to concerns regarding the migration of data from more than one platform, it was clarified that the project would be managed in line with the Partnership’s Project and Risk Framework and would be tracked accordingly.

DECISION:

1)    That the addition of £322,940 to the Council’s Capital Programme be approved, to enable the project’s delivery, to be financed as described in paragraph 2.8; and

2)    That the addition of the projected savings to the Council’s multi-year savings and transformation plan, as overseen by the Leader and Portfolio Holder, be approved.

(Other options considered:

·       Do nothing – this would not enable savings to be realised and was not an option for South Holland District Council due to the current planning system soon ceasing to operate;

·       For the Council to procure its own standalone systems – this would not enable savings to be realised.

Reasons for decision:

·       To deliver efficiency savings against current system costs;

·       To facilitate the alignment of Planning and Regulatory Service Directorates to enable the services to achieve greater savings in their operating costs by working as ‘one’ across the Partnership).