1. the starting point and aim for PCH was to transform services rather then just transferring them. The social enterprise allowed the freedom and flexibility to do so along with increased capital and revenue funding;

2. PCH board and executive were in place early, allowing for the new arrangements to be fully embedded when the stock transfer took place;

3. in order to maintain focus a set of promises for the first 100 days were made to tenants. The promises allowed Plymouth community homes to communicate a clear difference between the city council housing department and the new provider;

4. tenants were included from the very beginning.  The involvement of tenants was key to redesigning service areas, tenant involvement groups continued to report to the board and PCH’s branding was designed by tenants;

5. innovative engagement activities allowed the PCH to enter into dialogue with groups they found hard to reach. Such activities included working with the Eden Project in Ham Woods and work with Devonport Music Zone had helped reach young people and families;

6. the majority of staff who transferred from the council into PCH were happy to transfer. There was a core group who emphasised strong positives about PCH. Management engaged in back to the floor days and continued to provide fortnightly updates to staff;

7. communication of information to the front line was also key. It was essential that staff felt able to raise concerns;

8. although the transfer allowed some funding options to be realised there was also a five year efficiency programme. In order to achieve efficiencies there was a large investment in information technology and mobile working;

9. there was an emphasis on cultural change in PCH, the new social enterprise would not have succeeded if old ways of working had continued.  PCH had focused on minimising cynicism of the transformation by focusing on benefits,  all staff were given customer service training;

10. the board had also carried out a training programme which resulted in a knowledgeable board which understood the business and governance that surrounded it. The board continued to attend regular training events.

11. the board consisted of four independent members, three tenant and leaseholder members and four councillors with a traditional executive beneath this;

12. PCH could have been had a greater focus on customer services earlier and a restructure should have happened earlier;

13. staff had been reassured around working arrangements and many were now transferring to PCH terms and conditions;

14. PCH had a “strap-line” which was referred to in all of the organisations dealings “Work for Plymouth, strengthen communities and improve our homes” this made PCH unique.

(1)   the Board membership proposed in the business plan was too large and the role of the individual members unclear. The group requests that clarity is provided when the document is presented to the scrutiny panel in June 2011;

(2)   the draft memorandum and articles are presented to the Health Scrutiny panel as soon as available;

(3)   further details of a clear engagement strategy for staff and users and associated action plan is presented to the health scrutiny panel as soon as available;

(4)   a focus on improved collaboration with the voluntary and community sector is included when the document is presented to the scrutiny panel in June 2011;

(5)   the governance section of the business plan is further clarified with a stronger focus on the social enterprise undertaking;

(6)   the group endorsed the proposals for an external, independent evaluation of the board to be carried out during the first year of operation as a social enterprise.