Agenda and draft minutes

Apologies were received from Cllr England.

To confirm the minutes of the meeting held on 19 September 2024 as a correct record.

The minutes of the meeting held on 19 September 2024 were confirmed as a correct record.

To note any declarations of interest made by members in connection with an agenda item. The nature of the interest must also be specified.

Members are asked to discuss any possible interests with Democratic Services prior to the meeting.

For the purposes of transparency, Cllr Jack Davies declared an interest in the Transformation Programme item as a member of Lymington and Pennington Town Council.

To receive any public participation in accordance with the Council’s public participation scheme.

There was no public participation.

To receive the half yearly update complaints performance and service improvement report (to include the annual complaints performance and service improvement report 2023/24)

(Members of the Housing and Communities Overview and Scrutiny Panel have been invited to attend for this item).

The Panel received a half yearly update on complaints, which had been introduced to provide increased member scrutiny standards of complaints as required by the Housing Ombudsman and the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman. These new arrangements were designed to ensure both overview and scrutiny panels and Cabinet as the governing body, received regular updates on complaint handling.

The report included details of new complaint-handling codes, the Council’s corporate complaint procedures, and a summary and breakdown of complaints received during the period 1 April 2024 – 30 September 2024. As well as complaints, the report also included positive feedback / compliments received by services.

As the report included complaints relating to the Housing Ombudsman (tenant complaints), members of the Housing and Communities O&S Panel had been invited to the meeting for discussion of this item.

It was reported that 125 complaints had been received during the half yearly period, an increase on the 109 received in the last financial year, though 42 of the 125 complaints related to the handling of a single planning application. 

Overall, there had been a general increase in the number of complaints that the Council had received, in part due to the introduction of new services (though the complaint rate was proportionally low compared with the number of new service users). However, it was explained the increase in complaints overall reflected both the Council’s efforts in making it easier for the public to raise issues, as well as the national trend for greater publicity and awareness of complaints reporting procedures.

It was queried whether more case examples could be included to better illustrate learning from complaints upheld, and officers would consider this.

It was noted that the percentage of complaints upheld had declined when compared to the last financial year, which should be viewed positively as it showed less finding of fault. The Council aimed to effectively deal with complaints in accordance with its corporate complaints procedure and the requirements of the complaint handling codes, and use to complaints as a source of learning to drive service improvements.

The Panel noted that there had been no maladministration findings by either ombudsmen in the half yearly period.

Members felt the report was very useful and was evidence of a robust process which was open to scrutiny.

RESOLVED:

That the report be noted.

To receive the report of the Financial Strategy Task and Finish Group.

The Panel received the report of the Financial Strategy Task and Finish Group, which had reviewed the Council’s financial strategy and had sought to understand how the plans and assumptions made by the Portfolio Holders married up with the overarching financial planning of the Council.

Some members of the Group felt that some portfolio holders had been more forthcoming than others in their answers.

Members discussed the format of the reviews undertaken by the Group and how this might be improved. It was acknowledged that the Group’s operation was open, in that there were no restrictions on the types of questions that could be asked, though one member queried how useful it was as a tool for improving financial performance, and felt some of information in the report was a little vague.

It was suggested that feedback be sought from Cabinet members on whether they felt it a worthwhile exercise, and these views would inform the format of future reviews.

It was requested that the Panel receive a report to its meeting in June 2025 on progress with the actions raised.

RESOLVED:

That the contents of the report be noted and the follow up actions for carrying through to officer actions, the relevant Overview and Scrutiny Panels, the Cabinet or other committees as appropriate, be endorsed.

To receive the report of the Council Tax Reduction Scheme Task and Finish Group.

The Panel considered the recommendations of the Council Tax Reduction Task and Finish Group on the Council Tax Reduction scheme 2025/26, the Council Tax Reduction Scheme Sanctions and Penalties Policy, and local exceptions to the empty home premium and second home premium, which were being introduced from 1 April 2025.

It was noted that the Scheme supported approximately 8000 claimants in paying their council tax, with the level of support being circa £10m per annum. Councils had responsibility for determining its local scheme to support those of working age, with support for pension age claimants set by Government.

The Task and Finish Group had reviewed aspects of the Scheme, taking into account a number of factors including feedback following the public consultation. Hampshire County Council had expressed concerns about making the scheme more generous, due to its severe financial pressures. 225 responses had been received to the consultation.

The Group had also taken into account the expected additional income to be gained from the Second Homes Premium.

Having taken everything into account, the Group had recommended the removal of the 10% minimum contribution, the removal of the Band D cap, an increase to the de minimis rule from £1 to £2, and to align the treatment of childcare costs with Universal Credit levels for all claims.

The Group had also undertaken the 3 yearly review of the Council Tax Reduction Scheme Sanctions and Penalties Policy.  As there had been no changes to legislation, only minor updating amendments were being proposed.

The Group had also considered the exceptions that the Government had recently announced regarding the Second Homes Premium and the Empty Homes Premium and recommended using local discretions to extend these in exceptional circumstances.

Cllr Alvey, the Chairman of the Group, thanked members of the Group and officers for their support during the review process.  He spoke in support of the recommendation to remove the 10% minimum contribution, and for the removal of the Band D cap, both of which related to the Council’s Corporate Plan objective to assist our most vulnerable residents.  He felt the report should have had more emphasis on the increased income expected form changes to the second home premiums. The Group had been informed that this extra income amounted to £2m, which would greatly exceed the additional cost to NFDC and other authorities (HCC and Fire etc), of the removal of the 10% minimum contribution and the Band D Cap.  He also queried whether a Task and Finish Group was the best way of considering such matters, and suggested that future consideration could be done directly by the Cabinet.

Cllr Heron, Portfolio Holder for Finance and Corporate, explained that the Council was contending with ever increasing prices, including annual wage increases, against fairly fixed income and a cap on council tax increases.  Consequently, there was still much hard work to do to achieve a balanced budget for 2025/26.  The Council was facing a long term deficit in 2028/29 of nearly £2.544m, which already took account  ...  view the full minutes text for item 31.

To receive an update on the Transformation Programme including Digital Principles.

For the purposes of transparency, Cllr Jack Davies declared an interest in this item as a member of Lymington and Pennington Town Council.

The Panel received a presentation update on progress with the transformation programme. The slides from the presentation form part of the agenda pack.

The update summarised the position with regard to the following aspects:

a)  Customer & Digital

b)  People & Capabilities

c)  Assets & Accommodation

d)  Finance & Delivery

A member asked whether the MACE Assets Review Report could be given to Panel members for scrutiny purposes. Officers advised that no decisions had yet been made arising from the MACE report, it was a 90 page officer - facing report not intended for publication, and it would inform future decisions which would be brought forward in a transparent way, in line with the Council’s democratic processes. In response to a further question, officers would consider whether it was practicable to make it available on the Members’ Portal. 

It was suggested that future reports provide information on the net benefit of the actions covered, for example whether they had led to higher levels of staff retention and any cost benefits, service improvements, fewer complaints, savings, or higher levels of engagement and feedback from residents, so that the data could more clearly show the impact the Transformation Programme was having on the Council and its residents.

In response, officers explained that some data on staff retention was already available in reports to HR Committee, which could be shared with this Panel, and the Transformation Strategy contained performance measures, which would be brought back to the Panel.

In answer to a query on whether members could be given process mapping data, including information on savings, officers advised that they were using a suite of financial and non-financial measures to inform progress and were very happy to provide these sorts of details and it was agreed that some examples be made available to members at the next meeting.  Officers cited an example where the Council’s Housing Voids process was being analysed and broken down in detail, and a number of the Council’s processes were being looked at using that approach.

A member sought assurances that the Panel would be given reports and background information which informed the decisions on the options being considered, prior to various decisions being made.  Officers responded that as part of the governance structure to support the agreed Transformation Strategy, reports would be brought to the Panel and elsewhere as decisions in the programme were brought for agreement.

In response to a query on a reference in Principle 2 – Data Driven, it was explained that ’Golden records’ of customers and assets providing a ‘single source of truth’ referred to ensuring customer and other data being joined up and held in a centralised location to provide better informed decision making and an optimised customer experience.  Officers undertook to refine the description to make it clearer.

In answer to a question, it was explained that customer data was protected under the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 32.

An opportunity for the Portfolio Holders to provide an update to the Panel on developments within their portfolios.

Cllr Heron, Portfolio Holder for Finance and Corporate, reported that slow but steady and good progress was being made on the Planning software project.

The Solent Freeport was progressing slowly due to some delays, and it was accepted that progress was very much driven by local industry. He hoped that it would eventually deliver benefits for the local area and he would ensure the Panel were kept informed.

In answer to a query on KPIs, it was explained that this would be forthcoming at the January meeting following these recently been agreed by Cabinet.

Budget work was ongoing and it was hoped a balanced budget would come forward in due course.

Consultants were now undertaking work in relation to works on Eling Tide Mill. The costs of the works would be significant, though indications were that these would not be as high as previously feared. Discussions were being held with the Town Council and the two councils would be collaborating on the best way forward.

A comment was made to Cllr Steve Davies, who was standing in for the Leader, on the Peer Review document and inclusion of the Opposition’s view on perceived defects in the role of scrutiny and the fact that the scrutiny panels were chaired by the ruling group. The Deputy Leader felt the Peer Review document was comprehensive, but undertook to pass these views back to the Leader.  Officers further explained that there would be the opportunity for all members to discuss issues around the way governance issues worked within the Council. The Peer Review team, which included a Conservative and Lib Dem, would be interested to hear from a wide range members including back bench and opposition councillors.

To agree the work programme to guide the Panel’s activities over the coming months.

RESOLVED:

That the Work Programme be approved.

(An update on progress with the actions arising from the Financial Strategy T&F report would be added to the Work Programme for the June Panel meeting).