To engage Local Government East (on a draw down basis) to provide additional support, challenge and specialist project management to the Housing Service to:-

(1)     lead delivery of the Housing Improvement Plan;

(2)     co-ordinate preparing for inspection activities;

(3)     maintain the Consumer Standards evidence and risk register; and

(4)     support inspection readiness (and, if required, inspection and post-inspection activity).

The Regulator of Social Housing can undertake an inspection during the current programme window. The Council has undertaken a ‘Mock Inspection’ and has evidenced improvement priorities.

Additional specialist project management capacity is required to embed learning, drive delivery of the Improvement Plan and ensure inspection readiness. Formalising this decision provides a clear governance and audit trail and enables timely mobilisation.

Option 1 – ‘Do Nothing’ and develop robust Housing Improvement Plan in-house

A significant amount of work has been undertaken by all the teams within the Housing Service over the last two years. A data collection exercise has been undertaken recently to identify gaps and highlight areas for improvement.

While that exercise has provided valuable insight, there is now a clear need to create capacity to analyse the findings, embed learning, and produce and manage a robust Housing Improvement Plan, ensuring the Council is fully prepared for a future Regulator of Social Housing inspection.

To achieve this, it is proposed to retain the services of Local Government East, whose support would focus on project management, inspection readiness and the effective use of data already collected through the data collection exercise. This is best achieved by using an external source to give an independent view of our position to date. Therefore, Option 1 was rejected.

Option 2 – Go to the ‘market’ via a procurement exercise to seek this support

Given the uncertainty of the inspection timescale and time associated with undertaking a procurement exercise and the specialist nature of the support and challenge needed, Option 2 was rejected.