18 September 2025
NEW FOREST DISTRICT COUNCIL
Resources and Transformation Overview and Scrutiny Panel
Minutes of a meeting of the Resources and Transformation Overview and Scrutiny Panel held on Thursday, 18 September 2025
* Cllr Alan O'Sullivan (Chairman)
* Cllr Barry Dunning (Vice-Chairman)
|
Councillors: |
Councillors:
|
|
* Alan Alvey * Jack Davies * Jacqui England * Barry Rickman * Alex Wade
|
* Christine Ward * Phil Woods
|
*Present
In attendance:
|
Councillors: Jill Cleary |
Councillors: Jeremy Heron |
Also In Attendance:
Officers Attending:
Ingrid Archer, Alan Bethune, James Carpenter, Rebecca Drummond, Tim Guymer, Kate Ryan, Paul Whittles, Matt Wisdom, Saqib Yasin and Lee Ellis
Apologies
No apologies were received from Panel members.
|
18 |
Minutes |
RESOLVED:
The minutes of the meeting held on 26 June 2025 were confirmed as a correct record.
|
19 |
Declarations of Interest |
Cllr Dunning disclosed a non-pecuniary interest in item 4, for transparency purposes (Local Government Reorganisation Update – Final Proposals) (Minute 21) as a member of Hampshire County Council.
|
20 |
Public Participation |
There was no public participation.
|
21 |
Local Government Reorganisation Update - Final Proposals |
The Panel received an update on the final proposals for Local Government Reorganisation.
A member felt that the role of Town and Parish Councils would need strong governance to support their future roles, alongside warding arrangements and Councillor numbers. It was confirmed that the information which was submitted as part of the case for change was high level and was around how many councillors, overall, the new Council would require. The option 1 appendix was based on using the Hampshire County divisions and it was recognised that some form of existing governance would be required, with the Boundary Commission undertaking a review in the first terms of office of the new Councils. Option 1 was based around a 93 Councillor size. Conversations had also taken place to understand the role that Town and Parish Councils currently undertook and how they worked with other authorities. Another member expressed concern at the proposed number of councillors and the increase in associated casework.
Concern was also raised by a member that a large proportion of the pubic were still unaware of local government reorganisation and asked what was being done to communicate the forthcoming changes, to the public. In response, it was recognised that not everyone was digitally enabled. The Council’s approach was that when there was a requirement for residents to take part in a consultation then the Council would work really hard to communicate the need, so the public could have their say. Communication would be stepped up again at the next stage of consultation.
It was confirmed that new models of frontline services, following local government reorganisation, were currently being worked upon although any final decision on a model would be undertaken by the new Council. It was reiterated that the Council didn’t want to see any reductions or cuts in services although there would be clear advantages for a single, unitary layer. However, there would also be disadvantages in being a further step removed from the community.
Another member asked how much reliance could be put on the response to Option 1 and it was confirmed that the response figure was above the benchmark and that the responses were therefore reliable. As a District, New Forest attracted nearly as many responses as Hampshire County Council.
Concern was raised regarding local services and how the new Council would manage on a larger scale especially as financial savings were predicted. In response, it was stated that context was important and that the combined spend across the Hampshire area on an annual basis was just under £3.5bn. With an estimated £64m saving annually from local government reorganisation, it was less than 2% of the annual spend. There were clear differences in the estimations between cases and the joint case which the Council had worked upon involved good oversight and engagement in the process with a reliance on KPMG, as the experts. MHCLG would be interrogating the assumptions which had been made on the same base data and the different outcomes. The Panel were also reminded that this was a business case regarding local government reorganisation and wasn’t building a budget for the new Council.
It was also confirmed that the complexity of boundary changes would be an issue and the local MPs were supporting the Council’s case. Baroness Taylor had recently visited the District and that provided an opportunity to put forward the case for the New Forest. It was also confirmed that other representatives from central government would also be visiting the New Forest in the near future.
The Panel also felt that it was important to remember the impact on staff and the emphasis on efficiency could lead to a high staff turnover.
RESOLVED:
That the report was noted.
|
22 |
Transformation Programme Update (Presentation) |
The Panel received a presentation on the transformation programme update.
A member asked how long it would be before the customer call system would be up and running. It was confirmed that the core elements would be operational within a couple of months but also needed to take into consideration other service pressures such as the waste collection rollout and elections.
It was asked how many other local government organisations had worked with Netcall and what was Netcall’s approach to testing. In response, it was confirmed that the authority had been in contact with twelve other Councils that used Netcall. As part of the customer testing there was a clear stream of work which was based around customer consultation and were currently working on testing the service for vulnerable customers and its accessibility.
Another Panel member requested further information on the programme management office, what it was designed to achieve and whether any milestones had been assigned. In response, it was confirmed that the programme management office was designed to provide overall visibility and an assurance framework for all the Council’s projects. This would also capture how the project aligned with the Council’s strategic objectives and that those objectives were being monitored and delivered. It was early stages in the development of milestones, and it was acknowledged the pressures that local government reorganisation would put on the Council and its resources. An update would be brought back to the Panel.
RESOLVED:
That the presentation was noted.
|
23 |
Corporate Peer Challenge Follow Up Report |
The Panel considered the Corporate Peer Challenge follow up report and it was confirmed that the corporate peer challenge would return on 6 November 2025.
A Panel member raised concern that the A326 upgrade had been removed from the list of key deliverables. In response, it was confirmed that the Council supported the upgrade to the A326 but had been removed from the list of key deliverables as New Forest District Council was not the lead Council on the project.
It was raised by a member that there was an absence of opportunities for opposition members to undertake the role of Chairman or Vice-Chairman on Scrutiny Panels, along with the need for longer public participation at Council meetings, time for member questions at Council and the lack of opportunities for members to add items to an agenda. In response, it was confirmed that Panel members could request items be added to the work programme.
Following a question on the carbon reduction programme, it was confirmed that there was a Climate Change and Nature Emergency Task and Finish Group underway which would be looking at outcomes and milestones. In addition, the Place and Sustainability Overview and Scrutiny Panel received regular updates from the Climate Change and Nature Emergency Task and Finish Group, along with the action plan.
RESOLVED:
That the Panel:
1. noted the progress update against each of the CPC recommendations
2. considered the action plan progress at Appendix 2 of the report
3. noted the review of key deliverables at Appendix 3
|
24 |
Financial Strategy Task and Finish Group Update |
The Panel considered the Financial Strategy Task and Finish Group Actions Update.
RESOLVED:
That the report was noted.
|
25 |
Corporate Plan Key Performance Data - Quarter 1 |
The Panel considered the Corporate Plan Key Performance Data – Quarter 1.
A member asked whether ID 41 (Percentage Variance to Council Budget +/-) was a 10% under or overspend. It was confirmed that underspends were predominately on capital projects and that money was still earmarked to spend. The Council didn’t have reserves that weren’t being utilised.
It was also asked by a Panel member which deliverable returns had been realised from ID 45 (Benefit Realisation from ICT Investment). In response, it was confirmed that the Council continued with the delivery of the service and its impact on across the Council. Additional information would be forwarded to members.
Members raised concerns regarding the impact of local government reorganisation on staff wellbeing and morale, with further HR and workforce data requested, potentially as part of a future HR update, to help monitor and understand those effects more comprehensively.
RESOLVED:
1. that the Panel considered and reviewed the Quarter 1 2025 – 2026 dashboard
2. that comments would be passed for onward consideration by Cabinet
|
26 |
Solent Freeport Annual Update (Presentation) |
A Panel member asked what the current jobs projection was for the Solent Freeport and when would there be an opportunity for Councils to make project bids from the Retained Rates Investment Committee. In addition, the member asked if local government reorganisation would have an impact on how monies were distributed and what would happen to unspent seed capital, if it wasn’t spent by March 2026. In response, it was confirmed that the Council would look at any emerging proposals in light of the previously expressed job numbers and were mindful of ABP talking about hundreds of jobs, this would be scrutinised when it became available. As part of the indicative funding share, there was a marked shift with the focus of the Retained Rates Investment Committee being more future based. It was intended to use the retained rate to bring forward the future delivery of other retained rates and tax sites. Conversations had not yet been undertaken on how the local investment priorities allocation would come forward but it was envisaged that as soon that did happen that there were schemes would which would benefit.
It was asked by a member what the benefits to other geographical areas such as Lymington and New Milton would be and it was confirmed that there would be numerous opportunities within the Solent Freeport and those living in the New Forest could potentially undertake employment there. The intention was to see schemes developed at the Solent Freeport and the benefits felt by the whole of the New Forest area.
A Panel member stated that they were disappointed that the site owner of Fawley Waterside hadn’t carried out any consultation or community engagement regarding their future plans for the site and asked if that could be passed onto the site owner. In response, it was confirmed that the Council was in regular contact with the developers and that discussions were ongoing. It was recognised that the original proposition was not deliverable or viable and that needed to be clearly conveyed to the Council and local community. The Fawley Waterside team were in the process of building a justification case that could be presented to Council and interested parties to make a case for a deliverable and viable future for the site.
RESOLVED:
That the report was noted.
|
27 |
Future Meeting Dates |
RESOLVED:
That the following dates for future meetings of the Committee in the 2026/27 municipal year be agreed:
(Thursdays at 10.00am)
2026
25 June
17 September
19 November
2027
21January
18 March
|
28 |
Portfolio Holder's Update |
The Panel received updates from the portfolio holders.
Cllr Jill Cleary, Leader
The Leader reported that there was a breadth of activity that the Council had undertaken including being committed to developing its People Strategy, alongside supporting staff both now and in the future. Pulse surveys would be undertaken with all staff and there would be opportunities for extensive training. The Council would do their best to support staff. The Leader and Group Leaders had discussed the new Employee Engagement Plan and agreed to build on successful resources such as staff briefings, the Employee Forum, diversity and inclusion groups and staff surveys. It had been agreed at the HR Committee that there would be a new approach to performance development including growth and goals. The Council was also updating its Market Supplement Policy.
Resources and priorities were being kept under review with a requirement to increase the budget and capacity to enable the delivery of local government reorganisation. The Council had key Corporate Plan priorities to deliver, alongside maintaining its daily services to the residents of the New Forest. EMT were bringing all projects and priorities into a single plan to support the budget setting process and delivery through to 2028.
A member asked a question regarding the Solent Freeport and the Dibden Bay consultation, and whether the Council was in favour of the Dibden Bay Proposal. In response, the Leader acknowledged that the application had only recently been received and had not had the opportunity to look at the proposal. The proposal would be brought to members and include a Member Briefing.
A question was also raised regarding the Corporate Peer Challenge and the recommendation for all groups to be better represented on the Council and how this could be encouraged. In response, the Leader stated that the Conservative Group was regularly trying to encourage younger and more diverse representatives to become involved in politics but was finding this difficult, especially with local government organisation on the horizon. The questioner felt that youth groups, schools and colleges could be engaged with and agreed that it was a continual challenge to attract new representatives.
Cllr Jeremy Heron, Finance and Corporate
The portfolio holder reported he was pleased with the significant progress of Solent Freeport in the past few months. Concern was expressed regarding the seed capital being at risk, if not used.
The Solent Freeport would benefit the entire district in delivering economic growth and should be supported.
The second quarter of the financial year was ending with the budget being monitored and a subsequent report to be presented to the Cabinet.
A Corporate Peer Challenge follow up visit would be taking place in November. It was also highlighted that an opposition member was chairing the Financial Strategy Task and Finish Group.
A member of the Panel felt that the Officer who dealt with social media regarding the waste collection rollout should be recognised for their professionalism in handling the media and the Portfolio Holder agreed.
A Panel member asked about CIL monies being guaranteed for New Forest projects in light of local government reorganisation. In response, the Portfolio Holder stated that the Council held CIL funding in two forms a) the funding attributed to the Town and Parish Councils and b) the funding that the Council held for district funding. The Council was keen for the money to be used to deliver projects. Several projects were already being delivered along with future projects being planned. It was explained by the Assistant Director – Place Development that the council published an Infrastructure Funding Statement annually, on-line which explained where the Council had spent CIL money and where it planned to spend money over the coming year. A report on non-committed CIL spending would be presented to the appropriate committee in due course.
|
29 |
Work Programme |
RESOLVED:
That the Work Programme be approved.
CHAIRMAN