South Northamptonshire Council Choice of landlord seminar Alan Johnson

1. South Northamptonshire Council Choice of landlord seminar Alan Johnson

2. The Principles • Considering • New stand-alone RSL • or new RSL within an existing Group • (A new organisation set up for SN as a subsidiary of an existing RSL) • Existing RSL • (Transfer of the stock to an existing RSL with local offices but HQ outside SN) • Differences are small between Stand-alone and Group • Would depend • Type of Group • What is negotiated

3. Key issues (1) • Identity with South Northants • SA: absolute local identity • Set up for SN • G: strong local identity within Group • New subsidiary set up for SN • E: limited local identity • Will depend on scale of operations and negotiations

4. Key Issues (2) • Control • SA: Controlled by local Board • Typical Board of 5 Council reps, 5 Tenant reps and 5 independents • G: managed by local Board (as above) • BUT Parent must have the right to exercise ultimate control in certain circumstances • E: No local Board but representation on main Board (by negotiation)

5. Key Issues (3) • Expertise • SA: will need to recruit new Management Team • G: can call on skills within Group • E: skills and experience available • Policies • SA: developed specifically for SN • G: developed for SN but compatible with Group • E: already has policies in place • Value for Money • G: should benefit from economies within Group (eg. central services) • E: additional economies may be achievable

6. Key Issues (4) • Community Empowerment • SA: Tenant representation on Board • SA: Tenant involvement in policy development • G: Tenant Representation on local Board but limited opportunities for representation on Parent • G: Tenant involvement in policy development (consistent with Group policies) • E: opportunities for local representation (inc. tenants) on existing Board

7. Key Issues (5) • New development • Housing Corporation requirement • RSL must have development status • SA: would need to operate through Partner RSL • G: would use Parent who would have development status • E: already has development status

8. Similarities and differences (tenants) • Major works and improvements • Guaranteed: no difference • Meet priority aspirations • Guaranteed: no difference • Service Improvements • Guaranteed: no difference • Enhanced tenant empowerment • May be greater opportunity in SA

9. Similarities and differences (the Council) • Support to the transfer process • Group/Existing could offer financial and staff support • Capital receipt from sale of housing • Group/Existing may be prepared to pay more • Provision of additional affordable homes • Higher receipt could be used to support more new homes • Strategic housing services • All three options could support the Council • Representation and Influence • Council likely to have more influence over SA and least over Existing

10. Similarities and differences (staff) • Job satisfaction • Should increase in any of the three options • Office location • Must be in SN initially • But Group and Existing HQ likely to be outside SN • Pensions and terms and conditions • Guaranteed in all three cases • Career opportunities • More in Group/Existing but also more competition • Opportunity for central services staff to transfer • Less chance in Group/Existing

11. Final considerations • Local identity • Control • Long term viability • Flexibility (merger and demerger) • Ability to attract the right staff • Value for money • WILL IT GET THE SUPPORT OF THE TENANTS