Agenda and minutes

The minutes of the meeting of 13 August 2024 are attached to be confirmed and signed as a correct record.

The minutes of 13 August 2024 were confirmed and signed as a correct record, subject to the amendment in Minute 32, MAFF Review by Working Group, changing the reference to “Cllr Highley was still awaiting engagement..” to “The Working Group was still awaiting engagement…”

Proposed by Cllr Butler; seconded by Cllr Cockarill.  Unanimously agreed. 

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 Worlock, who was being substituted by Cllr Forster; and Cllr Harward who was being substituted by Cllr Brown.

Cllr Butler was in the Chair in Cllr Worlock’s absence.

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.

No declarations were made.

The Chair had 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.

There were none.

Members to receive a short presentation from core grant recipients Fleet Phoenix, outlining the impact the core grant has had on their organisation.

Charlotte Tickner, Managing Director of Fleet Phoenix, gave an overview of the work undertaken by the organisation, outlining the impact Hart’s core grant had on the services they were able to provide to young people across the district.

Cllr Forster declared an interest in this item as he was a personal friend of Ms Tickner.

Members heard:

• The core values that thread through all the work undertaken
• About the services that were offered to young people
• That there was a focus on early intervention, particularly around knife crime and anti social behaviour
• Four summer projects had been run in 2024, each one over the six weeks’ school summer holidays.  These had been extremely successful
• Other services helped families that were in need of support during the cost of living crisis
• The new initiatives introduced for 2023, including the Hart Youth Achievement Awards
• The two projects that had commenced using funds secured through successful UKSPF bids

Members asked Ms Tickner:

• About the number of staff that Fleet Phoenix employed.  They had 7 paid staff, two full time and 5 on contracts of varying hours.  There were also 25 volunteers and a board of volunteer Trustees
• What age range people could volunteer from.  This was from age 18, and there was no upper age limit dependent on the activities involved, although volunteers were also sought for fundraising etc
• What would be the ideal type of premises that would be best for the organisation if anything were possible?  Ms Tickner felt that some type of Youth Centre in Fleet that could be used full time by Fleet Phoenix would be the ideal type of base, as daytime events could be organised which could be more focussed on families
• How other Parishes could ask for a similar type of summer project and whether there would be capacity amongst staff?  It was noted that a request should be sent to Fleet Phoenix which would be considered when the programme was put together at the beginning of each year.
• What, if any, differences in the type of support needed were noticeable across the district.  Ms Tickner advised that generally the issues were the same and were around mental health and self harm, and school avoidance.  Parenting skills was also an issue that they would like to focus more on if they had the facilities to offer more daytime work.

Ms Tickner was thanked for her very thought provoking presentation to the Committee, and left the meeting.

This report is seeking the Committee’s consideration prior to approval to adopt the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman Complaint Handling Code.

Recommendation

To review the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman Complaint Handling Code prior to being adopted.

This report sought the Committee’s consideration prior to approval to adopt the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman Complaint Handling Code.

Members heard:

• The Code was launched in April 2024 for implementation over the next two years
• The Code would ensure that residents had a consistent clear process to make complaints
• Staff would be trained to ensure that all complaints were dealt with appropriately and in a timely manner
• A Lead Member with responsibility for Complaints had been appointed
• Hart had been part of the Pilot scheme

Members queried:

• If the evaluation of the Code was not beginning until 2026, what would be happening between in the meantime
• How would the self assessment be structured
• Whether anticipated response times for complaints would remain the same as at present
• Whether if a “complaint” from a resident was dealt with as a “service request” rather than as a “formal complaint” this data was recorded and monitored
• How it was decided whether a “complaint” from a resident was a “formal complaint” or a “service request”

Members were advised:

• That the Code would be adopted by all Councils between now and 2026
• Guidance on the self assessment procedures would be published shortly which would hopefully provide clarity as to the structure and procedures
• That sanctions would not be changing
• That the current response times would remain, as Hart already had stricter response times than those required by the Ombudsman
• Some areas maintained records of all service requests received from residents, but others did not.  Work would be required to ensure all data was recorded so that a complete record of all “complaints” and “requests” could be tracked.

That the majority of “complaints” from residents were actually “service requests” and that very few were elevated to the status of a “formal complaint” under the Complaints Procedure, although a complainer had the right to request their complaint be dealt with under the Complaints Procedure at any time

This report seeks the Committee's views on the draft Digital Strategy 2024-28 before Cabinet considers it in October.

Recommendation

Overview and Scrutiny Committee is requested to review the draft Digital Strategy 2024-2028 (attached to this report in Appendix A) and pass comments to Cabinet.

This report sought the Committee's views on the draft Digital Strategy 2024-28 before Cabinet considered it in October.

Members heard:

• That this strategy was a guide to help the Council through digital change
• That items required to deliver the Council’s needs would be individually costed and consulted on properly.  This paper was to enable the Committee to consider the strategy document and offer comments and observations to Cabinet before their consideration at their October meeting
• The original Digital Strategy had been introduced in 2019, but many things had moved on since then and there was a need for an updated, balanced and realistic framework document
• 60% of the Council’s services were shared, and therefore collaborative approaches would be required when digital services were reviewed in these areas
• Each individual project would need to be monitored by Project Board and regular updates would be provided to Overview and Scrutiny

Members questioned

• Whether there was a need for the goals and outcomes to be made more evident in the strategy
• Whether the strategy needed more than what appeared to be just business as usual, particularly in the areas of how the strategy would make the Council more efficient
• What constraints there would be for the four-year vision, bearing in mind the potential financial constraints the Council may find itself in, in future years?  What funding had been set aside to begin the strategic journey now to achieve its aims?
• When would a full plan with costings be available for the Committee to review?
• As projects would need to be prioritised, who would be involved in this prioritisation process
• Whether the aims of the strategy should be headcount reduction, cost reduction, legal compliance, service improvement – ranked in priority order

Members were advised that

• There was a sum of £169K in digital reserves to start the process, and further projects would need to be bid for as part of the budget process for 2025/26.  The Committee would therefore be able to comment on these when reviewing the budget report being put to the January Overview and Scrutiny Committee meeting. 
• That after the strategy document was hopefully agreed by Cabinet at their October meeting, a  costed plan would be made available to this Committee in the next few months for consideration
• That senior Officers had already begun looking at prioritising the projects required to deliver the strategy, but that the Committee would be able to see the proposals/projects before they were finally agreed and then could debate the suggested prioritisation. 

The Change and Digital Manager undertook to review the document taking into consideration the comments of the Committee.  It was requested that a briefing be held for all Members on the strategy document to take them through in more detail and this would be arranged for a convenient date.

There was concern raised regarding those members of the public who were not able to, or did not wish to, access services via digital means, and the need to ensure that they were not “left  ...  view the full minutes text for item 42.

Hart District Council (HDC) has been granted £1million through the Government’s UK Shared Prosperity Fund (UKSPF) to fund projects identified HDC’s Local Investment Plan (LIP). This report provides progress on spending against approved funding allocations for the Community Hub and Youth provision UKSPF year 3 scheme. 

The Committee is recommended to note the progress on the projects awarded UKSPF funding by Cabinet in February 2024, and pass any comments to Cabinet

Hart District Council (HDC) has been granted £1million through the Government’s UK Shared Prosperity Fund (UKSPF) to fund projects identified HDC’s Local Investment Plan (LIP). This report provides progress on spending against approved funding allocations for the Community Hub and Youth provision UKSPF year 3 schemes.

Cllr Forster declared a non pecuniary, non prejudicial interest in this item as Hampshire County Council Cabinet Member for Education, as some of the projects awarded funding fell within his remit.

Members heard:

• A brief update on each of the projects that received UKSPF funding
• Whether the projects had been completed, were on track or had yet to start
• That this was a mid-year update as requested by Cabinet and was purely to note the progress being made on each project
• That there were 9 community and 7 young person projects that had received funding

Members queried:

• How the project spend was being monitored

Members were advised:

• That the UKSPF Senior Project Officer was working closely with the projects and monitoring spend closely. 
• All project co-ordinators had signed agreements which clearly set out the parameters of the funding being given
• That there was no capacity within the Council to overspend and that any additional funding required would need to be found by the individual organisations

Members thanked Officers for their helpful and interesting presentation.

To consider the Cabinet Work Programme.

The Cabinet Work Programme was noted.

To consider and amend the Overview and Scrutiny Work Programme.

Members noted that two items had been highlighted in the Work Programme which were items which were being suggested as changes to Committee dates.  These changes were agreed..

It was queried when the Corporate Plan was next due for review.  The current Corporate Plan ran until 2027, so would be reviewed in 2026 unless a substantive change was proposed before then