Agenda and draft minutes

The minutes of the meeting of 8 October 2024 are attached to be confirmed and signed as a correct record.

The minutes of 8 October 2024 were confirmed and signed as a correct record.

To receive any apologies for absence from Members*.

*Note: Members are asked to email Committee Services in advance of the meeting as soon as they become aware they will be absent.

Apologies had been received from Cllr Butler, who was being substituted by Cllr Makepeace-Browne and Cllr Thomas, who was substituted by Cllr Axam.

To declare disclosable, pecuniary and any other interests*.

*Note: Members are asked to email Committee Services in advance of the meeting as soon as they become aware they may have an interest to declare.

The Executive Director – Community declared an interest in Minute 67 as a Director of Butterwood Homes.

No announcements.

Anyone wishing to make a statement to the Committee should contact Committee Services at least two clear working days prior to the meeting. Further information can be found online.

None.

Budget monitoring report and forecast outturn for 2024/25 – the latest projections of expenditure and income, including capital, for 2024/25 for review including of any action necessary. Report to include treasury activity and adherence to approved policy.

The Executive Director – Corporate introduced the budget monitoring report and forecast outturn for 2024/25 – the latest projections of expenditure and income, including capital, for 2024/25 for review including of any action necessary. The report included treasury activity and adherence to approved policy.

The Executive Director – Corporate highlighted:

• That the latest forecast was consistent with the Q1 report, but the estimated net underspend had increased to £1.3m. This was largely due to treasury interest resulting from sustained high interest rates and continued strong performance from the finance team, and staff vacancy savings
• Capital was within budget overall, with the majority of the major PSDS scheme cost falling in 2026/27
• Treasury activity had been within approved thresholds and prudential indicators all complied with. ESG ratings of investments significantly exceeded the agreed minimum level required 
• The report identified major cost pressures from key projects arising in the following 12 months, including the Local Plan, and it was proposed that the forecast underspend be earmarked.

 The Executive Director explained the recommendations for Cabinet:

·         The new finance system would go live in April 2025, the new post would be for a System Administrator, paid for with funds currently used for the Capita contract

·         IT security improvements to Sharepoint, to be funded from external cyber security funding awarded

·         Moving funds between two projects at Fleet Pond, both funded from the S106 receipt

·         The UKSPF funding showed good progress and a potential underspend. Officers would bring a report with options to allocate this before the year-end

Members queried:

·        If the movement of £227K funds was of ring-fenced reserves into the budget or if it was external funding. The Corporate Director confirmed that it was both and agreed to send a breakdown.

·        How firm was the maturity of investments projection

Members were advised:

·          There was confidence in the interest rates for the current year and benefits would continue for the first 7 months of the following year.

To consider the update of the Medium -Term Financial Strategy and pass comments to Cabinet.

The Executive Director – Corporate introduced the update of the Medium -Term Financial Strategy, advising Members that they were expected to consider the report and pass comments to Cabinet. 

Members heard:

·         An explanation of the reasons for Hart having a 3-year plan including the timescales of government funding and the number of controls and restrictions imposed.

·         The early indications of the impact of the Chancellor’s budget, including the employer’s contribution to National Insurance, £160K (direct hit) and the unknown in-direct hit from external services and contracts.

·         The Government had indicated they would cushion public sector bodies, but not by how much.

·         The Chancellor’s budget did not mention any lifting of restrictions on Council Tax rises.

·          A breakdown of the assumptions behind the top-level figures was provided in the detailed appendices to the report.

·         The inflation costs would not be able to be fully covered from Council Tax, which was £8.5M of the £13M net budget, leaving a structural deficit. £3.5M of the funding was the Government grant which was all uncertain going forward.

·         The new statutory requirement to implement weekly food waste from all households from April 2026 was in the new contract. This was estimated to cost £1.5M pa.

·         New burdens funding for transitional and ongoing food waste costs had not been confirmed by the new Government.

·         Treasury interest income would provide an additional £400K to the 25/26 budget.

·         The current savings target was £601K to close and balance the 2025/26 budget. This could increase before the draft budget was presented.

·         The savings targets for 2026/27 were £1.471M and £700K in 2027/28.

·         Overall, the position had worsened since February 2024.

·         Service managers had been considering income streams, efficiency, value for money using the Council’s Digital Strategy since the Spring.

·         Reserves were held that could be utilised to smooth the impact and would be a prudent approach in the short term if necessary.

·         Government funding was likely to change very quickly. Grant funding settlements would not be rolled forward in 2025/26, and the Fair Funding review was likely to be reinstated. If based on deprivation, this would likely lead to a reduction of funding in Hart.

·         Funding for one off costs for the waste contract had been received (£800K) but there was uncertainty on what other funding would be received and this was a significant risk.

Members queried: 

·         Whether the £160K National Insurance rise was a direct-hit. This was confirmed, and there was likely to be an indirect cost from service contracts and procurement.

·         The New Homes Bonus and indications from Government of a focus on deprivation for new funding.

·         The starting of the waste contract 6 months earlier than the statutory requirement.

·         If the MTFS reflected a genuine upturn in the projection of interest rates. This was confirmed.

To receive the fly-tipping options appraisal and provide comments for consideration by Cabinet.

Members were asked to receive the fly-tipping options appraisal and provide comments for consideration by the Cabinet.

The Business Develoment Manager, Development Management introduced the report.  The report considered the recommendations made by the Fly-Tipping Task and Finish Group. 

Members heard:

·         Most of the recommendations depended upon personnel.

·         The report set out the range of initiatives that could be delivered.

·         The current resource was 1 FTE post and the recruitment of 1 additional FTE post on a 2 year fixed term basis was recommended.

·         The initiatives would focus on education as well as enforcement.

·         The team would have management and dedicated legal resource to support them.

·         A further £5K of funding was requested to purchase additional equipment, i.e. cameras, data storage cards and locks.

·         It was recommended that the collection arrangement currently in place with Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council was reviewed at a later date.

·         An update on achievements to date by the current officer in post.

Members queried:

·         The job descriptions of the two roles. It was confirmed that the roles would be complementary with enforcement and education focus.

·         The type and cost of the proposed cameras and the legislation to support this.

·         Availability of police resources to support prosecutions and the dedicated legal recourse.

·         The timeline for recruitment. It was confirmed that the recruitment process could start in January if agreed by Cabinet.

·         The strategy/work plan.

The work by the Task and Finish Group and by officers was praised.

To consider an assessment of the development management (DM) service following the implementation of a process review to increase the speed of planning application decisions.

The Portfolio Holder for Planning Policy and Development Management introduced a report that sought to address issues raised about the service and showcase the positive work of the service. The stress the planning system was under nationally was raised, noting that staff recruitment and retention remained the biggest risk.

The Business Development Manager, Development Management highlighted the key elements of the report:

·         Value for Money: 2,673 decisions made in 2023/24 (an average of 267 cases), most of the team were Hart employees, only 1.4% of cases pre-date 2024, paper processes had been eliminated.

·         Extensions of Time (EoTs) were not heavily used compared to other Authorities.

·         Making the right decisions in the right way: use of regular routine reviews, review of old cases, using technology, shorter plain English reports, EoT procedure, site visit protocol, new validation standards and a review of standard conditions.

·         Providing good customer service: communication, customer-focused culture, case management approach reintroduced agent’s forum, positive engagement with parishes.

In conclusion, the recovery from the dip in performance in 2023 was complete.  All the indicators were positive, performance was good with sensible reliance on EOTs, recent changes in practice would deliver further enhancement.

Members queried:

·         Whether an action plan would be produced. It was confirmed that actions would be built into the service plan for the following year.

·         The pre-application process and the use of the bespoke and standard services offered.

·         Lessons learnt from the 2019 action plan

·         The updating of application dates on the public access website

Members welcomed the positive progress shown in the report.

To receive feedback from members on the three Service Panels.

Corporate – Cllr Farmer

·         Attended by Cllrs Farmer and Thomas.

·         Constructive discussion was had.

·         Several amber rated issues were discussed, the implementation of the local government services job evaluation and the contracts/procurement specifically a delay in the shard legal services contract.

·         The waste contract risks as already outlined previously.

Community – Cllr Taylor

·         A well-attended meeting.

·         Most projects were on track or completed.

·         The responsibility for flooding and two projects had moved under the Community Service

·         One project was rated amber but the delay was due to awaiting a response from an external partner.

·         Successes to highlight were:successful recruitment of housing enforcement roles, a housing drop-in event, team building day at Yateley Industries and a pre-Council drop-in session had been very successful.

Place – Cllr Highley

·         A long, but very constructive meeting.

·         The review discussed earlier covered some of the items already.

·         Performance across the targets was improving, especially in the processing of planning applications.

·         Several major pieces of work were underway/completed; the review of the Local Plan to be reported to O&S the following month, the response to the Government’s consultation on MPPF, the fly-tipping review, the consultation on the draft SPD was due to start late November, response to the Odiham/North Warnborough Neighbourhood Plan

·         Pleased to note the performance improvement work within planning and work to stabilise the team

·         Two outstanding projects needed attention. Firstly, Kingsway Flood Alleviation scheme, this had now moved on and a user agreement was about to be signed. Secondly, an external project manager needed to be recruited to work with the residents.

·         The biggest risk was proposed changes to the Planning system, officers were working to understand the potential consequences.

Cllr Jones also attended the panel and agreed with the assessment.

Members queried the red rating against the food hygiene indicator.

Members heard this was due to officers having to undertake a review on behalf of the Government into local funeral directors and the loss of a member of staff. The backlog had been reduced and was back on track.

To received feedback from representatives on the Butterwood Homes Scrutiny Panel, and provide comments to Cabinet.

Ms Jenkins left the room at this point as she was a director of Butterwood Homes.

Cllr Worlock introduced the report, both herself and Cllr Davies had attended the Panel.

·         The appendix included supporting documentation and the meeting minutes. Additional information on an updated operational plan had been received the following day.

·         The meeting had been informative.

·         Refreshed objectives for Butterwood Homes, focusing on providing affordable housing for key workers without profit, ensuring local connections and affordability.

·         The team's sensible management and partnership approach aimed to balance risk effectively, especially regarding the 42 properties. They met regularly on compliance, and vacancies were filled quickly with a rent review process in place to align prices with market rates.

·         The financial accounts up to 31 March showed positive results, with a projected rental income increase and a gradual rent increase of 3-4%. Overall, it was a positive experience, with examples of the positive community impact shared.

·         In summary, while Councillor Farmer couldn't attend, the meeting was constructive, and thorough information was received, addressing previous scrutiny challenges. It was clear that past Members contributed significantly to this success. 

To consider the Cabinet Work Programme.

The Cabinet Work Programme was noted. 

To consider and amend the Overview and Scrutiny Work Programme.

Members noted the Overview and Scrutiny Work Programme. A query was raised about when the Hart Local Plan (Strategy & Sites) 2032 would be considered by O&S as it was listed on both work programmes for December. 

(Post meeting note: This report will be considered by O&S in December 2024 and Cabinet in January 2025.)

A member asked the Chair and the Committee to consider adding a new workstream focused on the Freedom of Information process.

Since no written report or advance notice of this request had been provided, it was agreed that additional information was needed before any further consideration or decision could be made.

At the Chair's request, the member agreed to forward the information presented to the Committee to the Chair, the Chief Executive, and the Monitoring Officer. The Chair would then review and evaluate the data to determine whether the request should be pursued further.